GyaroMaguus

Welcome!

Hello, GyaroMaguus, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Midgrid(talk) 00:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doug Witcomb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Defender (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Garbo edit

Hello there, you just edited something on the Garbo page which I don't understand. Can you explain what you did? Many people make these adjustments which I don't understand so, out of curiosity, I want to learn this stuff! You can just answer, if you wish, on my talk p. thanks, --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew that one; meant to write someone else. Sorry!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Formula One 2013

Check all the Formula One news sites: Force India confirms Adrian Sutil, so don't be so quick undoing my edit ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.50.81 (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

> Thank you for your adultly comment! I admit that I should have add a source to it, my fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.50.81 (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palmer Cord Tyres, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page René Thomas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2007–08 Gretna F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Cowan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2013 F1 Drivers Standings

Template:2013 F1 Drivers Standings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

F1 discussion

I think you're absolutely right. During big debates I've always said that real life is always more important and should always take precedence. This one is a really frustrating discussion and it's very easy for any or all of us to get caught up in it and lose our cool, to nobody's advantage. Somehow at least one of us seems to hate every single idea! find At some stage we'll figure out a solution and we'll all move on, and ultimately it won't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. I still think WCC order is a long shot, simply due to the numbers of people against it, but I'll bring your points into the discussion in the unlikely event that WCC order is a realistic option. More importantly, good luck tomorrow :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sortable table

Hey, feel free to edit the tables in my sandbox. I can then post it to the discussion. ^Kytabu_Talk 09:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Calendar hyphens

Hi there,

By sheer coincidence I found the following at MOS:HYPHEN: Non-breaking: A non-breaking hyphen can be created by using the HTML code ‑ Maybe this can help us solve the issues we are having with the hyphens of Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps and Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya in the calendar?

Hope this is helpful! Tvx1 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thanks for the reply, but don't quite understand the issue. (It's certainly me ;) ) I don't really notice the difference between the two versions. Is it something only noticeable on a mobile device.?

Then there's something else I thought of. Is there a possibility to have the "nat" column heading in the coding but hide it on the actual article? Tvx1 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That's really odd. On my MacOS the hyphens are identical in both Safari and Chrome.

As for the column heading I think that should work if you enter the following code in the "nat" and "list of circuit" header cells : ! style="border-right:0px"|Nat. and ! style="border-left:0px"|Circuit and apply the "hidden" mark around the "Nation" template. Tvx1 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if you could solve the alignment issue by aligning the "Circuit" to the left of the cell and then adding some spaces (nonbreaking ones if necessary) to move it to the center?

Side note. It can be painful to deal with those users, but you have made some very good arguments against Prisoner there. And as I said on the talk page, I'm completely clueless why Joetri accused you of owning the article even though you agree with Joetri that the title column should not be removed. Tvx1 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

We could look at it this way: I doesn't hurt trying. I would try solving the alignment myself if you just direct me where to where I can find the correct coding for it. We can relist the link to the sandbox on the article talk page and wait and see which reactions we get. No problem if it doesn't work, at least we made an attempt. Tvx1 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done! How does it look?

Earlier today I compared the hyphen's again using IE this time in they're indeed different in that browser. This is bizarre. Tvx1 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I have given the alignment issue another go and I think I solved it now. "The Phoenix" should now look okay both on desktop and on mobile. Tvx1 (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

On closer inspection I do admit that it's still not 100% perfect on mobile. I tried adjusting it again, so maybe it's okay now. Nevertheless I think we should ask ourselves the question wether it's entire unacceptable or not in its current form. I think it's maybe worth a try to find out what other users think of it. It does seem to be okay both on desktop and on mobile for the teams and drivers table. Could you specify what the issue is you're experiencing with it?

I have now tried to solve in a completely different manner by hiding or removing the "nat" heading and adding colspan 2 to the circuit header (you will find the version in question in your sandbox's history), but if I do that the flags get cropped up entirely when viewed on mobile. I'm completely clueless on what causes this and how we can prevent this from happening. Tvx1 (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Flag issue

I'll ask you directly, since the discussion on the 2014 page has crowded this out, but just what is the issue with flags in tables on mobiles? I've looked at the tables on my phone (iPhone if it makes a difference) and the only difference I can see is the 2014 table keeps everything on one line. That frankly is not grounds to add a "Nat." heading - we all know the flags are meant to represent nationality - so unless there is some fatal error showing on another platform I will have to insist on their removal.

It is worth noting that similar tables with flags are used everywhere on this website from the Olympics to WW2, and the 2014 season page is the only article where someone has complained. Either we are doing something wrong with our tables, which is possible as they are a pain in the ass to create, or someone is over-egging the problem. QueenCake (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. I have missed most of the debates about the tables in previous months, so when I noticed that this column had appeared yesterday I was rather perplexed as to its purpose. I do understand the intent here, and you have put in a lot of effort to try and correct this issue.

However, I do still have to question the necessity of this. In particular I'd question, "While the line break between the circuit name and the place is acceptable, the line break between the flag and the text is not." I do wonder just why this is unacceptable. It is after all merely a line break, and the purpose of the flag to indicate the location of the racing circuit is not in any way impaired. It is also worth considering that every visible heading further complicates the table, and they are already difficult for newcomers to understand as it is. So you do just have to consider whether it is really worth fixing a minor issue on one platform in this manner.

I wish you luck bringing it up with the powers that be, but unless there happens to be a possible software change planned I fear this may not end well. This problem is not isolated to one table or even this project - you are describing a problem that exists on tens of thousands, if not hundreds, of articles. You're certainly not going to get them all to agree to this change, and there will be editors who will not accept a different table on the 2014 article. Worse, the MOS flag extremists who won't change their idiotic policy will push for the flags simply to be removed. I won't unilaterally change the tables currently on the 2014 page, but I will strongly advise not to make this change anywhere else without some wider discussion beforehand. QueenCake (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm just struggling to understand why neatness should be such an issue, and I do object to calling tables "broken" when really it's just a bit wonky. They are still readable after all.

As for the powers-that-be, I was (humorously) referring to the select group of editors who inhabit the policy areas of Wikipedia, who are quite content to throw out endless policy pages and refuse to compromise until the opposition gives up in frustration. Sure, feel free to raise this issue and perhaps there'll be an update to fix it, but don't be surprised in the meantime if someone arrives onto tje 2014 page and reverses everything you've done on the grounds of uniformity.

In any case, I won't take up any more of your time on this. QueenCake (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

ANRFC

I agree with you, this has become ridiculous even by WT:F1 standards. Problem is, a discussion has to be live for a month before you can take it to ANRFC. Considering that this feels like it's been going on forever, I was stunned to see it began on 26 March. So we have three weeks before we can take it there. I will have a think about what else we can do in the meantime. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Let's see where we are on the 9th. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "2014 Formula One season". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Tables on mobile

Hey GM,

Now that the 2014 season article has had its protection removed, I was hoping you could take at the "free practice drivers" section of the table (I am not happy that it is there; I think it should be a separate, collapsible table as test drivers are not the same as race drivers, but that's not the point - there was a consensus for it, but Tvx1 has declared that one invalid, too, mostly because only a handful of people discussed it).

I was wondering if there was some way of centre-aligning the test drivers. Right now, they appear at the top if the column, and there is a whole lot of white space under it. Is it possible to move them down to the middle of the cell? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks anyway. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Extra discussion

Hey GM,

Thanks for implementing those changes now that the DRN is resolved. I noticed in your edit summary that you did not include the "Nat." column on the grounds that further discussion is needed, but I am not sure that it is. The benefits of that column on mobile devices are obvious (and they don't interfere with non-mobile browsers), and Tvx1 has found a way of hiding the heading in the team and driver chart. That could be applied to the calendar (and possibly even the results tables), giving us all of the benefits of the "Nat." column with none of the problems that arise from having the heading. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the choice between a column title that is slightly out of alignment and the awkward staggering of circuits and their corresponding flagicons, the column title is the lesser evil. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey!

I know you from F1 Wiki! ---[ TheDanishSGTFanNerd | DanishSGTFan123 ]--- 11:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miloslav Mečíř, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrey Kuznetsov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Car result tables

Hi GM,

Do you mind taking a look at the results tables in the articles for 2014 F1 cars? I added Lotterer and Rossi to the CT05 and MR03 articles, and noticed that the table is broken on mobile devices. Since you solved the issues with the team and driver table in the season article earlier in the year, I thought you might be the man to speak to about it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Another coding thing for mobiles

Hi GM,

I've found another markup issue on mobile devices, this time relating to race report infoboxes. If you look at 2014 Singapore Grand Prix, everything is fine, but once qualifying and race data is added, such as in 2014 Italian Grand Prix, some of the cells in the infobox - particularly the date entry - change their width to be half as wide as it should be. Do you have any ideas as to what might be causing this? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Spot-on, once again. Thanks for that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox racing car

Hi GM,

I have another coding issue I was hoping you could help with. I have noticed that, despite the title, Template:Infobox racing car is overwhelmingly in favour of Formula 1 cars. There are a few additional fields that I would like to see added, but I cannot get them to work. In particular, I'd like to see fields for a car's first win and last win, and an alternative table to the existing one, showing entries, wins, podiums and championships. Is it possible to add this stuff? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Grand Prix organizers

Thanks for providing the source regarding who hosted organized those Grands Prix. They were really enlightening. I was wondering if you would have similar information on the Luxembourg Grand Prix. I'm pretty sure all of those (thus including 1997 and 1998) were organized by the Automobile Club du Grande-Duché de Luxembourg (ACL). I just haven't been able to locate a conclusive source myself. Tvx1 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

Cheers for the [ fix], I think it's getting too late at night for me to edit. SPACKlick (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with research

Hi. I would like to put a kind request for some research. I read on your user page that you possess the 1997-2007 official F1 yearbooks. If you could find some time, could you look in the 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 yearbooks whether they mention something on the nationality of Benetton. This would be a great help for this discussion. And while your at it, you could take a look in the 1997 & 1998 yearbooks whether they say something about the organisers of the Luxembourg GP's. Thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Block evading

Gyaro, do you think the IP that made the request to remove the bullet point on the Korean Grand Prix from the 2015 Formula One season article might be Prisonermonkeys? The wording in the request resembles PM's style very closely and the type of action the IP requested is something PM has advocated/actioned a couple of times in the past (removing text detailing a scheduled, well documented change that ultimately didn't happen). Looking at the IP's contributions I notice some of the edit summaries look a lot like PM's ones and doing a check on the IP reveals that it's from Australia just like PM. Any thoughts? Oh, and you can reply here, don't worry I'll notice it. I prefer to have discussions in one place rather than split over multiple talk pages. Tvx1 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It actually is Prisonermonkeys. I have found this contribution from the IP, where the IP actually identifies themselves as Prisonermonkeys. I'm reporting this to the administrators. Tvx1 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I had found the same evidence, though I would note it is from a public terminal. I will say that (a) the chances of someone caring that much about a small issue also editing from the same terminal is very small and (b) PM hasn't always been entirely truthful. —Gyaro–Maguus— 18:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have made the report anyway. Tvx1 (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Which I believe to be the correct course of action. —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was successful. —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. I have never had any reaction that fast at WP:ANI, and certainly didn't have any "success" before. Tvx1 (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, it was completely obvious. —Gyaro–Maguus— 20:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And unsurprisingly PM is crying innocent. Tvx1 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fake tears that won't fool anyone. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

PM has filed an unblock request now. Tvx1 (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't expect it succeed. There is too much evidence against him. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It failed and they have filed a new one. Tvx1 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Since part of me feels bad if it actually isn't him (it is entirely possible that he did actually move, and that it isn't him), I've tried to see if there exists some kind of thing to compare the writing styles. However, it is late for me, and right now the only stylometry software I can access might require a download and is therefore something I am not going to delve into right now. —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget that someone who is evading a block is likely to attempt to deliberately introduce some style changes and or spelling errors to avoid attracting suspicion. Tvx1 (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not think of that. —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about Prisonermonkeys' case. They seem quite adamant, but then again PM has always been like that regarding blocks. It's so difficult to acquire clearcut proof in either direction. Tvx1 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see his original block restored. I didn't think it was PM when I replied to the talk page post, and judging by his understanding of his situation, I'd say that maybe it may not have been him. I'm sure PM knows that we would have kept the Korean GP on there, like how the GP of America has remained on the relevant articles. Though there is too much coincidence about the whole situation. Maybe an old friend, knowing what PM liked doing, found the old public terminal to get him blocked longer, but I'm just WP:SPECULATING. —Gyaro–Maguus— 01:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems Prisonermonkeys managed to make things even worse for themselves. Four administrators have now reviewed the evidence independent from each other and none of them accepted Prisonermonkeys explanation. I think we should better leave it at that. Tvx1 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully, PM will too. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

They haven't. Tvx1 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I feel the block extension on top of the block extension is actually a bit harsh, and I do actually agree with PM on his point, though he cannot argue it anymore (he has finally been properly shut up!). —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

At least he is better in IP mode than this guy. —Gyaro–Maguus— 02:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's really very much like the club example you posted on PM's article earlier. They have gained a reputation for themselves. And a considerable amount of it is their own fault. If PM would have shown some insight in their misbehavior and some intention of changing their ways in even one of the unblock requests for their previous blocks they might have gained some respect with the administrators. Instead Prisonermonkeys constested each block on the basis that it was unjustified for one reason or another only to get involved in another edir-war after the block had expired. Over the course of several blocks PM has thus comprehensively damaged their own credebility. And that has resulted in the current situation. But at the end of the day, one month isn't really that much in an entire lifetime. It will have passed before we know it and I'm confident Prisonermonkeys will return as a better editor. Tvx1 (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think PM was really able to read it, with his talk page being too large for his phone. Anyhow, PM respects me and listens to me (not something many editors can say), and he has/had intentions to read it, and I believe if PM does read the 6,933-byte message (which took at least 45 minutes to write) thoroughly, he will understand where he goes wrong, and will be able to correct it, should he actually choose to do so. Then he will be better editor, but if not, we will have the same issues again.

The worst thing is though, is that he has helped destroy the essence of discussion in the F1 WikiProject. Every point, no matter how minor, would be contested to the death. You and PM would inevitably disagree (and I was genuinely frustrated when Eightball brought out the DRN card when you and PM actually agreed for once) and the arguments were so mind-numbingly awful that people started to straight-up avoid getting involved in the first place. Hopefully, if PM changes, we can actually have nice, calm, discussions, and more people will contribute. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't help but notice how peaceful and constructive the atmosphere in the Project has been in recent weeks. Tvx1 (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Other people seem to be more willing to be involved. Everyone wants to be helpful (like when someone asked Breton a question and everyone answered before he did) and there is no aggravation because PM isn't vehemently disagreeing with everyone. I have hopes that he'll come back and be nice, but judging by the content of the block-evading post, I'm not sure whether that'll be the case. —Gyaro–Maguus— 16:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm certain now that Prisonermonkeys was evading their block a month ago. The first issue PM raises after their block expires is the only matter the IP raised on a talk page. And Prisonermonkeys seems to be the only one complaining about that information. Tvx1 22:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I had exactly the same thoughts. Because, y'know, the best way to prove you weren't block evading is to post exactly the same point that was previously refused. Anyway, it looks like the blocks haven't changed him, and it seems like it won't be too long until I bring up my immense talk page post to him again. —Gyaro–Maguus— 22:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

On second thoughts I'll be readying/updating the near-7,000 byte message fairly swiftly. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

PM's trying to settle scores and questioning our wisdom. Tvx1 18:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently I need to take action quickly. I wish not to get involved with the ANI discussion. I will add the first law of holes point to my lengthy message. As for him questioning our wisdom, the points he raised are fair, the conclusion of questioning our wisdom was not. If only he learnt from his mistakes. —Gyaro–Maguus— 18:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Emotions in the project are rising again. This edit by our good friend seems to mean nothing else than "I'm more intelligent than the lot of you!" Tvx1 05:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The problems are PM and Eightball. He quite simply doesn't understand the structure of the article, but believes his view is the one to be followed despite you telling him otherwise. Hopefully we can fix this. —Gyaro–Maguus— 11:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I wish. I tried a bit. But I'm met with hostility. And I don't want to get dragged in to this personal bickering anymore. The alignment hysteria was my personal low and I have vowed not get myself in such a situation anymore. The problem now is that no one else is weighing in their opinions and as a result it's just Twirlypen vs Prisonermonkeys. Tvx1 18:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Considering that Twirlypen felt he needed to ask PM why he removed a certain piece of text you put back, I think I to send my 7,000-byte essay over ASAP. This is getting silly. —Gyaro–Maguus— 18:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems like were set for another endless debate where PM will not take no for an answer. Tvx1 14:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to agree with you. —Gyaro–Maguus— 19:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1, I'll admit, I facepalmed upon seeing PM's latest block. I'll give my monumental essay in my sandbox an update, then give it to PM (or, more likely, just a link to the sandbox), tell him to read it, and tell him to read it again, then tell him to consider his actions. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

. We have often expressed our annoyance with PM's attitude in discussions, but I think Bretonbanquet's attitude at times during the recent discussion isn't that much better. I'm really tired of the bad faith insinuations/accusations. I really tried to follow the good discussion guidelines you wrote during the alignment farce. A few compromises were suggest and even implemented, but nothing seems to satisfy Breton. Thankfully the criticizing of the editors has stopped and we are now assessing the sources and the rules. Tvx1 22:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If you have any issues with my attitude or behaviour, please do the honourable thing and take it to the correct admin pages, rather than backbiting on other editors' talk pages. This is the second such occasion today. It seems more than a touch ironic that you don't like me criticising you, but you're happy to come here and criticise me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Tvx1 That was poor of you. I think highly of Bretonbanquet, because (a) he is a good editor and (b) I actually don't think he has crossed the line so far. Tvx1, I saw you quoted policies/guidelines, and you have started bolding in your posts, mixing this with italics. I personally would side with Breton, but because the situation, like practically every discussionable position in the WikiProject, is really complicated, I have simply decided it is easier to side with what the WikiProject has done in the past, which happens to side with you rather than Breton, and I would side with Breton if the peoples of the WikiProject a decade ago had done things differently (yes, my decision is based on edits made before I even considered joining Wikipedia). And I will say that it is funny how you wrote "Thankfully the criticizing of the editors has stopped" while criticising someone. Please follow the Golden Rule, and no, that isn't a policy or a guideline, but human decency. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

So then you are perfectly ok with comments like "We know this table includes information that is misleading, but we like to make it as cock-eyed as we can so here's a footnote."? Do you actually think I enjoy having these bad faith insunuations thrown at me. I don't think the rant on Twirlypen's good faith, work in progress season report was appropriate either. Yes I did quote some policies. The only reason I did that was because I wanted to halt those bad faith insinuations before it spiralled out of control. And no I did not and will not go to the administrators because nothing that bad happened warranting their intervention. The discussion has now taken a turn for the worse without me even having any part in the latest interactions. All I want is to have a constructive discussion where everyone treats each other with basic respect and we can all leave our emotions behind. Is it that much to ask?Tvx1 11:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read everything, apologies, I should have noted "tl;dr" – mind you, I've decided to do my best to ignore these discussions because they are very stressful, and I intend to look into points I made in my most recent post to potentially disprove my argument and switch sides. However, that comment is only a little strong in my eyes but not out of order, especially in the context (it isn't an out-and-out statement). I couldn't find bad faith insinuations thrown about by Breton in Twirlypen's direction (rather, disagreement with the arguments posed by the other side of the discussion), and since you have gone to PM and me about Breton's actions, even I cannot apply good faith to your actions. Let me tell you, Breton knows the policies. So pointing it out is a moot point. As for Breton's noting of the admins, he has a point. In a workplace, if you have an issue, you discuss it with someone senior to you (at WP: the admins), not with colleagues who are equal to you (on WP: me, PM, etc). And if you want a constructive discussion, wrong WikiProject. —Gyaro–Maguus— 12:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Here [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] are the unnecessarily emotional comments which made me voice my concern here. This is the comment on Twirlypen's season report. I don't just voice concerns over my colleagues just because I enjoy that. Tvx1 15:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so Diff 1 is written in a sarcastic or semi-sarcastic tone that someone fed up with the situation would use. Diff 2 is perfectly fine in my eyes. Diff 3 shows Breton quoting policies, only as a response to you using them, but his point is not emotionally based on the situation and actually seems perfectly fine given the situation (and I would advise you to re-read what he actually writes in this one). Diff 4 is something of an anger discharge borne out of pure frustration, but he is arguing against the sheer quantity of tables. Diff 5 is him agreeing with QueenCake. Diff 6 regards sheer incredulation that you actually write and believe what you write. Breton's rebuttal of Twirlypen's idea is based on not understanding Twirlypen's ideas and stating why what he interprets is bad. Also, re-read my workplace analogy; your response to it implies you didn't fully understand what I wrote. —Gyaro–Maguus— 17:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kathy May Fritz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japan Open. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Quixotic plea

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Leicester Squad numbers

That was Huth's number last season he left the club and it hasn't been confirmed since he returned that he will keep that number. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 13:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I know mate, sadly Leicester's website is notoriously slow, Huth was never listed until the last game of the season in the squad last year. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 13:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello GyaroMaguus, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Happy editing, Tvx1 05:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I was planning to accompany these christmas greetings with a message pleading you to return to the F1 Wikiproject because you were absent from it for a while. However, you returned just last week. I hope you will stay with us because you have always been a very helpful contributor. Greetings, Tvx1 05:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, GyaroMaguus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, GyaroMaguus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, GyaroMaguus. 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)

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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Runners-Up" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Runners-Up. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Runners-Up until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 04:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

FishandChipper 🐟🍟 12:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)