User talk:Admanny: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:50, 13 November 2020

Welcome

Hello, Admanny, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Orphan Wiki 08:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Einführung Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

United States Grand Prix

Hello. Thanks for this bit of cleanup. However, could you please see Talk:2018 Formula One World Championship#United States Grand Prix and leave a comment there on why you removed the note, and why their was apparently indecision on you part to remove it despite the event being two weeks away? Thank you. 68.187.249.27 (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Your edit here is clearly a tit-for-tat response to @Tvx1 reverting one of your previous edits. If you wish to discuss the relevance of article content, you may do so on the article talk page. Otherwise the "since I can't get my way, I'm going to disrupt the page until I do" routine will get very tiring very fast. 1.129.107.247 (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LH44 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LH44. Since you had some involvement with the LH44 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Monta Vista High School, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Monta Vista High School, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. References are for the readers who never see edit summaries. John from Idegon (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Cody Parkey. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F1

Stop turning back my edits for no good reason. You mentioned that you do not even bother to read/respond to anything on your talk page, showing that you are unreasonable. And you have less than 300 edits in your 3 year Wikipedia history, and you are going to go around talking like you know everything? Grow up and stop interfering. I see you have already been warned on your talk page for vandalism and other things. As it is, it is common for races (and other events) to be prepared a few days in advance to make the editing process easier. If you cannot handle that, you will want to find something else to do instead. Myself and other editors have been prepping pages like that for several years without any problem from the community. I have nearly 18,000 edits in twelve years versus your 200+ in three years. You would be wise to stop acting like you know everything and making trouble. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Your recent editing history at Australian Grand Prix 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advise regarding new discussions

@Admanny:, allow me to give you a bit of advice following the recent misunderstanding at WT:F1, when you start a discussion it is always best to give a clear and unbiased heading informing editors only at the specific thing you want to discuss not. You should try and construct the opening to be as tight as possible to make sure editors don't talk about the wrong thing by accident or go off on massive tangents, details such as other edits the user made should be kept out of it to stop the discussion talking about those things instead. For an example you can see how I constructed an secondary header and presented what the discussion was about on the discussion, thanks. SSSB (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC) P.S. I would also advise putting your talk page on your watchlist and then removing the comment on your user page, lets just say it gives an extremely negative first impression. SSSB (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not giving a good reason for reverts

You just reverted my edit stating "change all the previous "no time"s before changing this one please". This is not a valid reason for several reasons:
1) Each race report is an independent article, we are under no obligation to keep them all the same
2) If I am to change them all I have to start somewhere
3) Having it not captilised is against the rules of punctuation, any text in a cell should start with a capital letter, in exactly the same way as a sentence starts in a capital letter.
If you are going to revert please cite a good reason. SSSB (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you edited 2019 Chinese Grand Prix. Good start! Here, I'll give you a list of more "no time" articles to edit:

This seems like a good place to start. Happy editing! Admanny (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious, did you just decide to ignore my previous message. I will go through those to correct the punctuation errors, however there is no need to correct all of those before we do 2019 Azerbaijan Grand Prix, please use some common sense and actually read and adress the issues brought up on your talk page, not just ignore them. SSSB (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you just gave the same bullsh*t argument again on an edit war at 2019 Formula One World Championship. If consistency bothers you so much you go back and change them. That's on you not us as we have no obligation to keep things consistent. Sure we have conventions but when something isn't covered by convention then use rational arguments (ie. not, "We did it like this 8 years ago so we must do it like this again"). Take it to the talk page. SSSB (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Hello, I'm SSSB. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. The edit summary is not where you place sources, they belong in the prose after the statement. Thank you. SSSB (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2019 Spanish Grand Prix, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. If your going to add info you need to add sources. Stop expecting people to do that for you and take some responsibility for your edits. This is the second time across as many race weekends. SSSB (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't expect me to do it when the news is too early for reliable sources to catch up. Admanny (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find a reliable source then don't add it per WP:VNT. You can't just guess that Hulkenberg will get a penalty, that is WP:OR. On a unrelated note what you wrote wasn't even factually correct, you can't get a penalty for changing the front wing, only its specification so please also check that the info you added is actually correct. SSSB (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing I got is the FIA document stating the penalty which is often not enough. Admanny (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, FIA documents wouldn't be enough to establish notabillity, however they are reliable so they can be added to source material. SSSB (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, again. Just copy and paste the link and place {{lr}} at the top of the page if you have to or better still add the source properly, it's not hard. And FIA pdfs are acceptable sources when providing sources to fact. SSSB (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring at 2019 Formula One World Championship. As I am sure you are aware this could result in a block. Please take your disagreements to the talk page like every one else and like you have already been instructed to do through a ping and edit summaries. SSSB (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might also interest you to know that Mclarenfan17 (the person you were edit warring with) has been reported to WP:AN3. SSSB (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on 2019 Austrian Grand Prix. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SSSB (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

editing against consensus

Please do not revert my recent edit at 2019 Formula One World Championship, we discussed this a few weeks ago and the consensus was that a note was sufficient. Also you are once again drifting dangerously close to engaging in an edit war. Thanks, SSSB (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lewis Hamilton, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. – Formula One wiki 10:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's this supposed to mean? It sounds like bad faith?

In this edit you left the summary corners were cut, just a warning for assume good faith here, yes I forgot to bold those rows but please don't accuse me of cutting corners when I did no such thing, I simply forgot to bold these rows. Please try to assume good faith going forward. Thanks,
SSSB (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said corners were cut because I noticed links directing to "Renault in F1" or "Racing Point" or "Mercedes in F1" or "Honda in F1" instead of "Renault in Formula One" and "Racing Point F1 Team" and etc., I was only trying to link them directly to the page and not have a redirect occur. No idea who made those edits but whatever. Admanny (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made those edits and it really doesn't matter, you want to take a read of WP:NOTBROKE which explains why those kinds of edits are unnecessary.
SSSB (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot really be applied here since team names are changing here and there, should something happen in the future the old one could point to something completely different. A thing we’ve always done in the past to future-proof the links. Nothing special. Admanny (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question of labeling of mainland China in lists

Hi, I have requested some assistance in determining this dispute. Would you be willing to provide your comment at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data. Thank you so much! Krazytea(talk) 20:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the disturbance. Just wondering if we should revert to using "Mainland China" for the sake of consistency with other articles. The template seems to be the only one using "China (mainland)" out of all the COVID-19 articles. I'm personally against using "Mainland China" or "China (mainland)" (it makes no difference really), but I think we should at least be consistent. Either use "China (mainland)" on all articles, or revert back to "Mainland China". Hayman30 (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hayman30: Problem is that "Mainland China" is used in a literature context, used in sentences, and is subject to proper grammar. "China (mainland)" is used in a viewing context, as it is in a table, where grammar does not tend to apply and should be for "cosmetic" purposes. However, you mentioned the inconsistency between the two so I'm open to changing it back to "Mainland China". Admanny (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated tables for iOS devices

Hi, I am KLPeople, one of the editors for List of iOS devices.

Just to inform you that I had updated the table stated below with a whole new table: - iPhone (In production and supported) - iPhone (Discontinued but supported) - iPhone (Discontinued and unsupported, 64 bit) - iPad Pro - iPad Air (both supported and unsupported, I separated with two sections) - iPad mini (both supported and unsupported, I separated with two sections) - iPad (Supported)

This is because the old table looks quite messy as lots of words mixed up together in each row. So I separated based on different categories so it will be much more nicer and comfortable to read.

If the new table has any problems please inform me in my talk page. I will fix it first in my sandbox, then later update in the iOS devices list.

Thank you---KLPeople (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great job on updating the iOS 13 tables! Keep up the good work! -◊PRAHLAD^Balaji 20:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renault Protest

Classification of STY, HUN and GBR don't have to be changed, as someone did. Details here. They must restored.--Island92 (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: That's what I'm doing. I reverted edits that put RP as already having lost points before the British GP. Not sure what you're trying to say here. Admanny (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now it seems to be fine.--Island92 (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink

Why are you putting a Wikilink for that Grand Prix and not for the other event of 2020 F1 season?--Island92 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you clearly reverted all of them per your edit history. Don't blame me for something you did. Admanny (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted for a reason, as it initially had been done here by @SSSB:.--Island92 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a comment with regards to this at User talk:5225C (as my name keeps being thrown around).
SSSB (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2020 Eifel Grand Prix has been accepted

2020 Eifel Grand Prix, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:2020 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:2020 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix. Thanks! Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AFC: 2020 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix has been accepted (29 October)

2020 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

AfC notification: Draft:2020 Turkish Grand Prix has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:2020 Turkish Grand Prix. Thanks! I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 18:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2020 Turkish Grand Prix has been accepted

2020 Turkish Grand Prix, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful

Hey, make sure you be careful when you make a revert at the 2020 presidential election article. WP:1RR applies there. Prcc27 (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prcc27: Appreciate the concern. First, enforcing established consensus is allowed as seen on WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CRP, second, 1RR is pretty much rarely enforced as I seen a lot of editors break that on that page. Admanny (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 312: / Line 312: @@
 == Be careful ==
 Hey, make sure you be careful when you make a revert at the 2020 presidential election article. [[WP:1RR]] applies there. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 23:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
-:Appreciate the concern. First, enforcing established consensus is allowed as seen on [[WP:CONSENSUS]] and [[WP:CRP]], second, 1RR is pretty much rarely enforced as I seen a lot of editors break that on that page. [[User:Admanny|Admanny]] ([[User talk:Admanny#top|talk]]) 23:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
+:{{re|Prcc27}} Appreciate the concern. First, enforcing established consensus is allowed as seen on [[WP:CONSENSUS]] and [[WP:CRP]], second, 1RR is pretty much rarely enforced as I seen a lot of editors break that on that page. [[User:Admanny|Admanny]] ([[User talk:Admanny#top|talk]]) 23:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)