User talk:Pyrope/Archive 2019

As of

Please see WP:ASOF. Hülkenberg's record does not classify as date-sensitive information. It is standard biographical information that may or may not change in the future. If it does change, the article will undoubtedly be promptly updated. "As of" in this case is not only unnecessary but creates a pointless update cycle. Prolog (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact tagged is true at the moment but may well change in the future, possibly very soon in the future. That is the very essence of "date-sensitive", and is almost precisely the form of words used in WP:ASOF to recommend the tag's use. There is nothing in WP:ASOF that persuades me that the tag should not be used in this case, and I'm a bit flummoxed as to why you think it does. The information may well be updated when it changes, or perhaps it won't. You could say the same about any piece of date sensitive information. And there is no update cycle, that's just obtuse bafflegab. If the info changes it gets updated; if not, it doesn't. Simple. Pyrope 23:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the examples and the wording ("that will date quickly" - emphasis mine) in WP:ASOF, I just don't see how "as of" is justified here. By your standards any information that could change seems to need the template. That sounds like crystalballing to me. By "update cycle" I was referring to editors feeling the need to update the "as of" tag to prevent an inaccuracy that does not need to be there in the first place. However, this is a minor quibble so I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Pyrope, I've semi-protected your talk page against the continued IP harassment directed at you. Please let me know if you want it unprotected at any time. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You are currently being maligned on edit summaries by an IP

I went to WP:AIV. 213.233.149.7 Thought you should know. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Jules Bianchi

You should know that anything that is added to an article needs a source. "Google is your friend" isn't an argument. Since Bianchi was only eight years old when Leclerc was born, it is very unlikely that he would be named godparent. --Marbe166 (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Marbe166, there are three points that need making here. First, no, not everything needs a source. Go and read our policy on verifiability. The only material that absolutely needs sources are direct quotations and contentious material. We do not need a source to state that, for example, the sun rises in the east or that fish can swim. Second, there is an old saying that assuming things makes an ass out of you. Think on that. You find it "very unlikely" that Bianchi was Leclerc's godfather; well, that shows how little you know. A simple Google search would have shown you that this information is very widely commented on in all sorts of coverage of the drivers, including documentaries on national television stations, in magazines, national newspapers, and books. As I have said previously, it has the status of common knowledge. Third, go and read WP:BRD. That you have decided to keep up your campaign rather than spend five seconds punching in a Google search is a bit weird, frankly. Try addressing your decision making paradigms and notions of personal fallibility. Pyrope 20:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

1948 British Grand Prix

I knew using this source was going to cause confusion as it contradicts itself. If you go to the Acknowledgements and updates section the update of 21 Mar 2010 states: "Changed 1948 British GP name to R.A.C. Grand Prix, not a Grande Epreuve, with thanks to Duncan Rollo (aka D-Type)." For whatever reason the Grandes Épreuves section was not properly updated. As kolumbus is a very well researched website I tend to agree with them on facts like this. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This is why personal blogs like kolumbus are not normally considered RS. There is a degree of editorial oversight and accountability that we require for RS. Find a better source. Pyrope 23:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

From page 35 (which is the first page of the chapter on 1949) of Doug Nye's The British Grand Prix 1926-1976: "Only seven months elapsed before the second British Grand Prix race at Silverstone. This time round, the RAC were granted Grand Epreuve status to put their race..." (Nye's itallics not mine). A7V2 (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Also on page 10 (in the Introduction): "For 1949 the FIA granted the race Grand Epreuve status, andthe RAC celebrated by christening it The British Grand Prix." A7V2 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that works. By the way, the italics are because he is using another language in an English text. Standard formatting. Cheers. Pyrope 00:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Haha yeah I know that, I just didn't want you to think I was being pretentious by adding my own itallics to illustate the point. All good :) A7V2 (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)