User talk:Kevintjeerdsma1996

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Kevintjeerdsma1996, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Orphan Wiki 12:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


European grand prix

Who deletes the european flag at the 2010 formula one season and al the other seasons it is the european grand prix i know it is held in germany spain and in the UK but it is still the european grand prix so the european flag User:Kevintjeerdsma1996

So what flag are you going to put for the Pacific Grand Prix? --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pacific flag no I'm joking I just mean that the flag of the european grand prix should be the European flag I know the races wher held in spain germany and in the UK but you can sea at the location of the valencia is the spanish flag that is ok but at the grand prix it should be the european flag.and the european grand prix has as specific flag the pacific flag hasen't. User:Kevintjeerdsma1996 (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you're new here, you probably don't know there is consensus - after this matter has been debated to death - to use the location of the race, rather than the title, for the flag. Cheers QueenCake (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'dont know what you mean it is just is the european grand prix so the european flag nowbody has to debate on that here at wikipedia User:Kevintjeerdsma1996 (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am now warning you that you are nearly in violation of the three revert rule. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked for 24 hours. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but i whil chalange and debate until it is the european flag.User:Kevintjeerdsma1996 (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will be blocked from editing. "I will keep doing it until I get my way" is not an attitude that will be tolerated. A majority of F1 Wikipedia editors have agreed that the European flag should not be used, your sole opinion does not override this consensus. The359 (Talk) 22:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I wil change it again but we can debate if it should be the spanish or european flag i will not change the flag anymore you don't have to be afraid I'dont want to get myself blocked i'm not that stupid. .User:Kevintjeerdsma1996 (talk) 22:2112 July 2010 (UTC)

The359 (Talk) I have one question Why we don't use the European Flag.User:Kevintjeerdsma1996 (talk) 22:48 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of days late, but if you are interested, the reason we don't use the European flag to indicate the European Grand Prix is that if we do so then the flag adds no information to the words. It's just decoration. If, on the other hand, we use the flag of the location, then the flag is adding information that is not contained in the name of the race: as you're aware European GPs have been held in many different countries. 4u1e (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks man It is a bit strange the european grand prix whit a spanish flag but ok i get it (talk) 19:05 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Emmanuel Clérico[edit]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Emmanuel Clérico. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Emmanuel Clérico[edit]

The article Emmanuel Clérico has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ϢereSpielChequers 12:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (July)[edit]

Welcome. – Cs-wolves(talk) 22:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (August)[edit]

– Cs-wolves(talk) 15:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (September)[edit]

--Midgrid(talk) 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown by car number[edit]

Hi Kevin. I'm really sorry, because I know it's a lot of work, but I've reverted your addition of a constructors' table breaking down points allocated by car number to the 1978 Formula One season article. It's basically because I believe that is massively too much detail for a site such as ours - which is a general purpose encyclopedia, not a specialist motorsport site, and specifically not a statistics site. Please read WP:NOT#STATS. Other than ChicaneF1 and Forix (presumably, I don't have a subscription!), I can't think of any other source that breaks down season results in this detail. We're already providing far more detail in our championship summary tables than, for example, the Autocourse annuals do. The 1998 annual that I've just looked at doesn't even have a constructors' championship summary table, just a list of points included in each race report. It's also dupliction: for the period in which car numbers were allocated for a season, it comes close to duplicating the drivers' results table. For the earlier period pre-197? in which car numbers were allocated race by race, not for the season, breaking down season results by car number isn't meaningful anyway. I hope you understand my position. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-championship F1 results[edit]

Hi there, you've removed the non-championship results from a few driver articles today - any particular reason? It would be better if you didn't do it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bretonbanquet I don't want to be stupid but i think that non championchip results are jus't races like le mans it is not a championchip so ithink the should be removed at all drivers do you know what i mean? The same in the formula one world championchip season all the races on that page should have a one page, because they are not part of the championchip,and also the same ase german f1 championchip and south afrian f1 championchip where the hell is that about it is not part ofe the f1 championchip whe should make a page called non formula championchip races or do you know a better name.(talk)

Please don't remove non-championship races from the season summary articles, as you did here and here. The season summary articles cover the entire F1 season (i.e. including both the championship and non-championship races). DH85868993 (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC) My mistake, I misunderstood your edits. Apologies. DH85868993 (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DH85868993 (talk)Thank you for understanding me.(talk)

The non-Championship results will stay on the drivers' articles until there is a consensus otherwise - they were Formula One races just the same as the Championship ones. I don't know what makes you think you can just remove huge chunks of other people's work like that without even providing an edit summary. Non-Championship races were far, far more important than, for example, European Formula Two races, but you're adding those everywhere. With the season articles, I agree with removing the few results tables that somebody added - they don't add anything useful in my view. There was no German F1 championship, and the South African F1 championship has its own article, so these aren't an issue. The SA results could go in the drivers articles though, when someone has time. Remember though, the season articles are about the Formula One season, not the Championship - today they are the same thing, but in the past it was different. Try to remember that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you do it, I'll consider it to be vandalism and take the appropriate action. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (October)[edit]

– Cs-wolves(talk) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1st/2nd/3rd fastest laps in F1 driver results tables[edit]

Hi Kevin. Please don't add any more 1st/2nd/3rd fastest laps to F1 driver results tables withot discussing the idea at WT:F1 first. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very good now more info on the results bu drivers it like the podiums onlu now by fastet laps.
You might think it is very good but it doesn't conform to the standard results table format. Please don't do any more without discussing it at WT:F1 first. DH85868993 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (November)[edit]

--Midgrid(talk) 00:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Various[edit]

Kevin, I've picked up a few of your changes today:

  • The 1979 Dino Ferrari Grand Prix was not a San Marino Grand Prix and shouldn't use the abbreviation SMR.
  • I believe Tony Brooks' 7th place finish at the 1957 Italian Grand Prix counts as a pointscoring finish (green) because he scored a point for fastest lap. This was possible up until 1959 - see List of Formula One World Championship points scoring systems. I've opened a discussion at WT:F1 to check.
  • I don't believe that Tyrrell's results for the 1984 season should be given as I think they were actually disqualified from each of the race results. That would be different to Schumacher in 1997 and McLaren in 2007, where it was the overall championship result that was cancelled and the individual race results stood. However, I'm not 100% sure, so I've opened a discussion on that one at WT:F1 too. 4u1e (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definately not. The Tyrrell's were disqualified and all race positions were re-allocated. It is fundamentally incorrect to suggest they keep their race positions in any way shape or form. --Falcadore (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (December)[edit]

– Cs-wolves(talk) 19:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results adjustments[edit]

Hi. Just a quick note about some of the results adjustments that you you are making. Please check them thoroughly and make sure that your alterations are justified. For example, I have had to revert both of your edits today to the Takuma Sato and Arrows pages. Sato had a fever and only participated in first practice. The BAR team went as far as altering their official entry in favour of Davidson prior to qualification, so "PO" was the correct notation. With Pedro de la Rosa's participation at Monaco in 2000 the situation is more complicated. He did indeed take the first start, but as the race was red flagged on the first lap and he didn't take the restart technically he didn't start the actual race. Pyrope 20:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

..ok. So just reverting without discussion then are you? Duly noted. Want to try and prove that you aren't actually wrong first? Pyrope 02:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about Stommelen, but your decision to split a couple of rows because more than one car was used still flys in the face of the conventions used for team results tables. These should be succinct tables summarising a team's championship results. The level of detail that you are introducing just isn't justified or desirable. On top of that, why did you only do a couple of rows? That makes no sense at all. Pyrope 18:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can see your point, but this has been handled in a more concise way in other tables simply by listing the different constructor points standings on different lines. Perhaps you'd like to discuss this more widely with the WP:F1 group? On an additional note, this is precisely why edit summaries are something you should be using a lot more. I think you ought to go and read the WP:BRD essay to understand how most experienced editors approach changes like this. Having to be continually prodded into explaining and discussing your edits doesn't do your reputation any good. Pyrope 22:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (January)[edit]

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Formula One at 17:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (February)[edit]

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 03:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Reg Parnell[edit]

Hi, why did you blank the entire Reg Parnell page? Kansan (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A plea... again[edit]

Kevin, once again, could you please explicitly address the following two questions:
1) Why do you hardly ever use edit summaries? Not doing so makes it very hard for other editors to tell what it is that you have done to a page. Not using edit summaries on the scale that you do is rude and disrespectful to your fellow editors. You have been asked to use them many times by quite a few different editors. Why do you keep not doing it?
2) Where do you get your Formula One results from? Their reliability isn't 100%, obviously. I've asked you this before and you haven't responded, so I thought I'd try again.
These two questions are important as, although most of your edits are helpful and constructive, there are a sizeable proportion that are not. They are either misguided, or are imparting incorrect information. This means that every one of your edits must be checked by someone else; you haven't built up a very high level of trust yet. Pyrope 20:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if I might also add that you please check links you create. David Hobbs, Frank Gardner and Pedro Rodriguez do not link to articles about racing drivers by way of example. --Falcadore (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy[edit]

If you're going to start a conversation asking for people's views on changes, can I suggest you have the courtesy to finish the fucking conversation before you go away and make any changes? Ta. 4u1e (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (March)[edit]

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Apologies for the late delivery of this month's newsletter; the automated delivery system appears not to be working at present.--Midgrid(talk) 23:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1975 Season etc.[edit]

Kevin, before you put much more wasted effort into adding in every single result for the season summary tables, bear in mind that "Only the best 6 results from the first 7 races and the best 6 results from the last 7 races counted towards the Championship" and that only one score for each manufacturer was counted toward the championship at each round. As these are championship summary tables, and not exhaustive lists of each and every car that competed, the information you added is overkill by several orders of magnitude. Pyrope 04:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try very hard to assume good faith on your part, but it's wearing very thin. Respect for others is a two way street and you continue to show none for your fellow editors here on Wikipedia. Your editing pattern is starting very much to look like a targeted pattern of insidious, troll-like disruption and not the actions of a conscientious, constructive contributor. You have been asked, repeatedly, by many editors to curb your behaviour and enter into discussions and yet time and again you do not. Care to explain here? Pyrope 22:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's twice I've reverted you at the '75 season article - you can see from the debate you were involved in that nobody agrees with your edit. Seriously, you don't understand how Wikipedia works, you persistently make like difficult for others, and I don't think we can help you any more. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPI[edit]

Your latest SPI case is here, if you want to comment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WPF1 Newsletter (April)[edit]

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Formula One at 17:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Warning on multiple accounts[edit]

Hi. Going forward, please remember to log in when you edit. Editing while logged out isn't really acceptable if you're a registered user, as it makes it harder to track what's going on. Further, if you edit while logged out to edit war, you will be blocked from editing. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock-ip|1=81.92.176.48|2=<nowiki>Abusing [[WP:Sock puppetry|multiple accounts]]: Please see: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Felipemassa123]]|3=HelloAnnyong}} </nowiki>

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kevintjeerdsma1996 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear wikipedia why am I blocked?

Decline reason:

When you were blocked with User:Felipemassa123, you, the human being, were blocked from editing Wikipedia. You aren't allowed to create a new account or log out to avoid that block. Instead, we expect you to respect that your edits don't meet the needs of Wikipedia, and refrain from editing. Right now, you're like a person who has been fired from her job but keeps breaking into the office. Just stop, accept that you have been fired, and look for a volunteer job elsewhere. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Tiago Monterio[edit]

JGMspt20 has put a fastet lap in the gp of Portugal 2nd race in 2008 but Tiago didn't took fastet lap he only won he also deleted the fastet lap of the first race in europe 2008. I don't know why its clear enough tiago has won that races and he didn;t took fastet lap in Portugal. Can someone please edit this for me. Tiago also took pole in monza 2011 2nd race. Kevin

WPF1 Newsletter (May)[edit]

This newsletter is being delivered to you because you signed up to this list. If you wish to stop receiving it, please remove your name.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevintjeerdsma1996&oldid=1144096783"