Bretonbanquet

For previous episodes of Talk Page hilarity, see User:Bretonbanquet/Talk Archive / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6

Bowie, Brixton, other non-"city" placenames

I had some discussion with Nikkimaria, after yours, at User talk:Nikkimaria#David Bowie; then added a discussion at Template talk:Infobox person#How narrowly to read "city" of birth/death? Also pinged you from both places. You may or may not want to participate (further). – .Raven  ^.talk 01:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Sad news

Hello, I am very sorry to report that Eagleash has passed away. Since your talk page was one of his most edited pages, I thought I should let you know. Graham87 12:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Graham87: I am very sorry indeed to hear this news; I very much enjoyed chatting with him over the years. I believe I owed him a message, and I'll always regret not replying now. Thanks so much for letting me know, I really appreciate it. All the best to you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

You're invited!

You have been invited to join the AC/DC WikiProject, a WikiProject on the English Wikipedia dedicated to improving articles and lists related to AC/DC. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants. Thank you. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 05:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

A prolonged edit war on Fleetwood Mac's Sara article

Over the past few months, there has been a conflict regarding the repeated removal of sourced material on the article for "Sara". The disputed information in question is the presence of the tack piano in the personnel section. The liner notes found in the 2015 deluxe edition of Tusk mention that Nicks played the tack piano on "Sara" and Ken Caillat has also verified this information, but the instrument has been repeatedly removed by several IP addresses, which might be operated by the same person. Despite several attempts to reach out through the IP's talk pages and the article's talk page, the editor has not provided any explanations for their actions. Do you have any potential solutions to resolve this matter? Hope you're doing well! Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dobbyelf62: Hi, all good here, hope you're well! Yes, that seems a little odd. There's no question about the credit or the sourcing, so I wonder what his problem is. It's very likely the same person; it's too obscure to be different people. I'll keep an eye on it, and if it persists to a strong enough degree, the article could be semi-protected, or an admin can wade through it and block the IPs. The bar is reasonably high for that though; at the moment an admin would tell us to simply revert for now. Let's see if he keeps it up. Cheers! Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly peculiar. I noticed that the same edit was made today on November 11th under a different IP address, although you kindly reverted it. This activity has been occurring since September 14, and it appears that nearly all of these accounts are exclusively dedicated towards removing the tack piano. One IP address [1] previously made unsourced additions to the personnel sections of various Fleetwood Mac articles and another IP address was blocked [2] for a period of one month, but the behavior has continued through other IP addresses. As demonstrated by their edit history, it is likely the same person operating through different IP addresses. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The two IPs you've mentioned there are both based in New England, but the one I reverted yesterday is from Washington state. That said, I still think it's the same guy. I just don't know what his problem is. We could probably get those blocked as he is technically evading the block, but as you say, he'll just skip to another IP. It's probably a case of whack-a-mole at the moment, and let's hope he gets bored. I'll continue to revert where I see it! Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This person is persistent. On two additional occasions since November 12th, the tack piano has been removed without an explanation. Fortunately, I have the article on my watchlist and have been able to detect these changes within a few hours of the edit. Still, it would probably be best to request semi-protection for the article to stop this behavior. What are the steps needed to accomplish this? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You make a request here, which I've done. There might not be enough disruption for semi-protection, it sort of depends on the admin who takes it up. But it's done; let's see what happens. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

We got lucky! We got a really good admin who semi-protected it. We should be okay for a while. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits of WDC Indianapolis 500 Drivers

Hi,

Thank you for your work on improving and maintaining Wikipedia. I appreciate your good faith edits of Emil Andres and Bill Schindler, however, I restored them to the previous versions I had inserted. The WDC language regarding points and participation in WDC events is the result of a consensus reached among the Formula 1 and American Open-Wheel Racing wikiprojects. Can I request that you not reword that language?

Thanks, and best regards, RegalZ8790 (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to that consensus, please? I find that astonishing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I was, and still am, learning where and how to have discussions. Sorry if that astonishes you. The discussion may have taken place on a driver talk page. @DH85868993 and @Doctorindy participated in this discussion. I don't remember where it was, but I now believe Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport would be the place to further a discussion.

RegalZ8790 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

No, what astonishes me after 18 years of editing Wikipedia is that wording as bad as that could have attained a consensus anywhere. If you revert someone quoting a consensus, you really need to be able to back it up. Editors honestly don't need to ask permission from a WikiProject to change bad wording on the say-so of one other editor. Your wording says "Drivers competing at Indianapolis during those years were credited with World Drivers' Championship points" which is flat out misleading. I look forward to the input of the two editors you've tagged. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall there being a discussion to establish the wording (which isn't to say there wasn't one; if there was one, it probably would have been many years ago, and I may have just forgotten about it). But Bretonbanquet is correct; drivers weren't automatically credited with WDC points just for participating in the Indy 500; so the current wording is misleading. DH85868993 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was on Mauri Rose's talk page, but it is no longer there. I do agree with @Bretonbanquet that the language is misleading. It was probably developed with more notable drivers in mind.

What do we think about "drivers competing at Indianapolis during those years were credited with World Drivers' Championship participation, and were eligible to accumulate points outside of those which they received towards the AAA/USAC National Championship"?

Breton, open to your language insight here.

RegalZ8790 (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@RegalZ8790 Yes, something along those lines. It might be good to name those extra points for which drivers were eligible, just for clarity, so maybe something like: "drivers competing at Indianapolis during those years were credited with World Drivers' Championship participation, and were eligible to receive/score WDC points alongside those which they received towards the AAA/USAC National Championship".

I do have an issue with the word 'accumulate' being used, as most of these guys scored no WDC points at all, and 'accumulate' is a word only used to describe amassing larger numbers of things. You can't accumulate nothing, zero, or one point, or whatever. So I'd be happier with "receive" or "score" in this case, so e.g. "He scored no points" or "he failed to score points". Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

How about using the word 'score'? I feel this implies the points were actively earned. 'Receive' sounds more passive in my opinion.

I feel the rest of the wording is an improvement. RegalZ8790 (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@RegalZ8790 Absolutely, yes, I prefer "score" as well for that exact reason. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet How about "may/might have scored" in regards to the AAA/USAC points? Only the drivers of the top ten or so cars received these points during the 1950-1960 era.

"drivers competing at Indianapolis during those years were credited with World Drivers' Championship participation, and were eligible to score WDC points alongside/in addition to those which they might have scored towards the AAA/USAC National Championship"

RegalZ8790 (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@RegalZ8790 Yes, happy with "may have" or "might have" (either is good, I think, unless people are extremely picky).

I think "alongside" is better than "in addition to" because the points aren't being added together; they're kept separate, and it might be misleading. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed.

"drivers competing at Indianapolis during those years were credited with World Drivers' Championship participation, and were eligible to score WDC points alongside those which they may have scored towards the AAA/USAC National Championship"

RegalZ8790 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@RegalZ8790 Looks fine to me! Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet Excellent. Thank you for the suggestions! RegalZ8790 (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@RegalZ8790 Any time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)