User talk:Tvx1/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

AfD

Thought I'd let you know that I've nominated an article for deletion, and see that you were the nominator for it's previous go at AfD. List of motorsports people by nickname. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PDC World Darts Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VTM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Nikita Mazepin Russian flag entries

F1.com includes it. Island92 (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Translation request

Hi Tvx1, I was wondering if you could please translate the page The Base (political party) from English into Dutch for a page on the Dutch language Wikipedia page? The page currently has no other language versions other than English and as it is a Dutch political party it seems highly relevant that it should have a Dutch language page. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. Helper201 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

2015 Formula One World Championship scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that 2015 Formula One World Championship has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 21 February 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 21, 2021. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, "a comprehensive report of the 2015 season of the Formula One World Championship"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 FIA Formula 3 Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Schumacher.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was withdrawn

It had a different time stamp because I made a mistake where I placed it last night and simply copied it over to tennis project where it should have been to begin with. I should have put on a new sig. Oops on my part. You didn't get a chance to respond because suddenly the discussion starter wanted it withdrawn... so I closed it. Had I know they wanted it closed I wouldn't have posted it at discussion at Tennis Project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I began the discussion in question and asked for it to be withdrawn. This was largely due to the fact I felt it was impossible to have a proper debate due to the behaviour of another editor. Fyunck's intervention warning me for calling a lie a lie also played a part in my decision, as I felt the behaviour of the other editor needed to be curbed and this intervention would have the opposite effect. However, it was largely the editor's behaviour that caused me to request the thread to be closed. The concerns I have about the ranking order of 1960 and 1961 still remain, but I have withdrawn the request to alter the running order. I apologise to you and any others that may have seen fyunck's message. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you’re withdrawal was an overreaction. It was still less than twelve hours since the request for more input was posted and minutes since it was moved to the right place. That’s just not enough reasonable time for more people to arrive and steer the discussion in the right direction. I feel it would be better to reopen it and continue it in a respectful colleborative manner without the words “lie” and “troll”. Someone having a different opinion is not the same thing as lying.Tvx1 01:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I completely understand why you think that. But I know the poster involved very well. He has a long history of relentless Hoad promotion (the tournament series promotion and world tour demotion is part of that). His posts about the tournament series I have heard many times, they have been completely disproved, but he persists in airing them. I have seen him ruin sensible debates many many times. There is no steering of the discussion when he has decided to jump on his hobby horse. I wouldnt describe most posters as liars, I would say they are mistaken or incorrect. But this guy is another matter. He has been called a lot worse in his time and not by me! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

And all of that would have been resolved with more input from more people and less emotion. Now however this wasn’t even given a chance.Tvx1 19:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What you dont seem to realise is I have seen the scenario played out many times before. A group of serious posters trying to debate sensibly with this guy on certain issues such as this. It doesnt work. The emotion comes from the weariness of years of dealing with him. I dont hate the guy, in fact I am sure if I met him and had a conversation with him about anything other than his relentless obsession I would probably get on with him fine. I wont be changing my mind on this. So I shall once again give my apologies and depart. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brazil women's national football team logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brazil women's national football team logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stan Wawrinka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Tennis at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification

Thanks for your work, there has been a lot of nonsense put into the tables. There are still some others that I cannot validate their lack of eligibility or protected ranking status, I will make a list later (on the talk tab) and would appreciate it if you took a look because I don't know where to find a lot of this information.18abruce (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure 18abruce, happy to help where possible.Tvx1 20:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I have listed the issues that I see, and have tried to simplify some of the table. User ApprenticeFan refuses to communicate and I am worried that I am going to be in trouble for edit warring, maybe some of the changes don't matter. Your perspective would be appreciated.18abruce (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Tvx1:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tennis at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SRF.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

sorry

I apologize if my barb in the edit summary in the tennis qualification appeared to be directed at you, it was not. I can see now that it could read that way. I was annoyed that the individual who originally added the Brazilian doubles had a source, and even when asked, they only supplied the website it came from and didn't care whether anyone found the source or not.18abruce (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I should he looked better myself. I had gotten quite some harsh edit summaries directed at me there, but actually not by you. I now remember that you were actually one of the only editors there who actually held discussion in order that have properly supported information for that. So I apologize for my edit summary as well.Tvx1 00:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Loup Bureau Wikipedia's page FR > EN

Hi,

We are FILMS BOUTIQUE an independent Berlin-based sales outfit specialized in international distribution of innovative feature films by filmmakers from all continents. We are presenting the first movie TRENCHES by Loup Bureau at the Venice Festival tomorrow. If you are available, would you be kind to translate Loup Bureau's wikipedia page (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loup_Bureau) from French to English? We would be so thankful for your help.

I look forward to hearing from you. Kind Regards, Films Boutique's team

I'll have to decline. It appears you have a conflict of interest. You are trying to use Wikipedia as tool to promote a subject for the financial benefit of your company.Tvx1 15:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:F1R2021

Hello. Regarding this edit of yours, are you in your edit summary referring to these IP edits [1] [2]? The IP was talking about, and edited, the GBR2 parameter in both cases, and that change was preserved in my series of edits on Sunday.

The GBR2 is the British Grand Prix result for Max Verstappen's page. The drivers' pages get bold markup (GBR in this case) for pole so there is no need for ^P superscript. That's all the IP is saying.

Your edit changed the GBR parameter, which is the result displayed on Template:F1 Constructors Standings. The ^1 P superscript was recently added to the British Grand Prix on that page presumably for consistency/clarity because Max got pole while finishing second in the sprint last weekend.

I posted a couple comments relating to this at Template talk:F1 Constructors Standings#British Grand Prix. It sparked a discussion that in hindsight, makes me wish I had posted it at a more centralized forum like WT:F1. --DB1729 (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hollandia (matses)

Hello. I'm currently creating a Hollandia (matzah)(Hollandia (matzes)) page in English and using some information from the Dutch wiki. Are you able to confirm some of the "Deegpers" section of the article, as it doesn't appear to be cited and the earlier citations are a level of Dutch I am unable to read? Also, the information regarding the owners is incorrect. Both Pieter and Udo currently own the factory and have since 2004, with only Pieter currently directing. The Woudstra family owned and directed the factory until then. The article I'm writing is considerably more detailed than the current Dutch one, would you be able to translate it to Dutch once I'm done? Thank you in advanced. Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Edit: I also see you translate German? I was just about to reach out to a German trasnlator as I found a resource in German and need help translating it in English, so I may include it in my article. Are you able to translate this German article from page 79 to 82?

FedEx St. Jude Championship

As per PGA Tour schedule announcements - [3]. Next year's FedEx St. Jude Championship will be replacing The Northern Trust, this new event although played at the same venue is not related or a continuation of the FedEx St. Jude Classic. Even on the PGA Tour's schedule on their website Tony Finau is listed as the defending champion proving again that this new event is a continuation of The Northern Trust. [4] Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

In that case there should probably be a new article for the new tournament. Just because one event takes the place on the calendar of an other they are not automatically the sale tournament. That’s an extreme example of WP:SYNTH. It’s clear that the FedEx St. Jude Championship is a new event with different organizers in a different venue.Tvx1 19:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It's obviously not crystal clear, but it's something we have discussed at WT:GOLF and ultimately we are waiting closer to the time on how to reflect this tournament here, ultimately depending on how reliable sources refer to it - i.e. continue in Northern Trust article or create new page. It's actually not clear that the FedEx St. Jude Championship will be a new event. But at the moment, the sources we have tell us that the event is a continuation of The Northern Trust. If you want to see the discussion at WT:GOLF: [5] Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

To be honest the discussion barely deals with the FedEx St. Jude Championship. There certainly isn't agreement that is simply the next edition of the Northern Trust. I will once again iterate that a new article should be created. It's more than different enough. The current situation is just unacceptable. I was reading the article on the 2021-22 PGA Tour, clicked on the wikilink for FedEx St. Jude Championship and ended up in an article that did not mention any FedEx St. Jude Championship at all. That's just poor article manegement. WP:LEAST should be taken into account here.Tvx1 23:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Unacceptable is a very harsh word to use there. We can only go by what sources say and so far there aren’t many out there considering the event is well into next year. WP:NOHURRY would advise us not to go jumping in straight away whether to create a new article etc. We can discuss that better when we have more reliable sources. The tournament definitely isn’t a continuation of the FedEx St. Jude Classic - there are no sources to support that. Jimmymci234 (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

We could create a new article, but it would violate WP:CRYSTAL to do that any time soon. As such, we have a redirect to what would seem to be the best target (which now contains an explanatory sentence) given the information we have, and wait until we have sufficient reliably sourced information to do anything different. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I commented at the WT:GOLF discussion. Let's continue this there.Tvx1 11:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Civil edit summaries

Please follow WP:ESDOS. Simply stating that you are updating/correcting the tense here would have been sufficient. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Obsolete HTML

In your edit of 19:41, 15 October 2021 of Portal:Formula One/Next Grand Prix/Round 03, you reverted ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್_ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's earlier fix of obsolete HTML. Please do not use the obsolete HTML tags <font>, <strike>, <tt> and <center>. HTML5-compliant markup is described at MW:Help:Lint errors/obsolete-tag. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't purportedly revert that particular edit. It's true that some of the parts of the portal still use obsolete markup, but were cleaning it up as we go.Tvx1 20:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Trees and tents

Dag Tvx1. Hier zag ik uw naam staan op de lijst met vertalers Nederlands-Engels en ik ben zo vrij om uw hulp te vragen. 'k Was deze week bezig om het Nederlandse pagina Tentje-boompje hier naar het Engels te vertalen op mijn Engelse Sandbox hier. Na de machinevertaling en kleine aanpassingen is het wenselijk dat er nog iemand naar de tekst kijkt die het Engels beter beheerst dan ik. Zou u het willen bekijken en verbeteren/aanpassen waar dat kan? Leef u gerust uit op de Engelse Kladversie hier. Kind regards.., Tulp8 (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hallo. Ik heb de vertaling zo goed mogelijk opgepoetst en enkele foutjes weggewerkt. Één punt uit de vertaling begrijp ik toch niet echt:

"A tent can make contact with multiple trees, but is directly connected to only one."

Hoe zie je het verschil tussen een tent die een boom raakt en één die er direct mee verbonden is??

Voorts ben ik niet overtuigd dat het onderwerp voldoet aan de relevantieregels (WP:GNG) van de Engelstalige Wiki.Tvx1 20:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Reuze bedankt voor de snelle aanpassingen en de feedback! De bedoeling van de hierboven genoemde omschrijving is dat er bijvoorbeeld in vakje kolom 1, rij 4 een tent kan staan. Die tent raakt dan zowel het boompje rechts ervan als het boompje erboven. In dat geval kan die tent slecht bij een van de twee mogelijke boompjes horen. ‘k Heb de tekst nu iets aangepast. Is het nu duidelijker voor de lezers, of kan het nog beter? Graag uw oordeel. Hopelijk is dat duidelijker. Ja de relevantie zal wel een hobbel kunnen worden. Er is nu een extra bron bij geplaatst, met een andere insteek dan uitleg. Met vriendelijke groet, Tulp8 (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Na jouw aanpassing is het inderdaad wel wat duidelijk. Al zie ik nog altijd niet hoe je een boom waarmee een tent "direct" verbonden kan onderscheiden van een boom die een tent gewoon "raakt".Tvx1 15:29, 17 October 2021 (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) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brazil women's national football team logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brazil women's national football team logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Tvx1!

Happy New Year!

Tvx1,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
SSSB (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

SSSB (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the Die Hard with a Vengeance plot summary have been removed because they added a significant amount of unnecessary detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2022

No I didn’t include any unnecessary detail. That’s just your personal opinion. I filled some gaps, where there were connections missing resulting in confusion and corrected some patently incorrect information.Tvx1 02:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:BRD, as your additions have been challenged, please discuss them at the article's Talk page rather than edit-warring. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It would help if you gave people time to reply.Tvx1 02:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

If I'd given you more time to reply would you not have restored your edits in violation of WP:FILMPLOT and WP:BRD? DonIago (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You can't violate a guideline to begin with. They're not laws. Moreover, BRD is an explanatory supplement. It's not even a guideline and hasn't been vetted by the community at all.Tvx1 18:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. DonIago (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Take as whatever you want. Says enough about you, that your first assumption is bad faith. You like to lecture others about guidelines and supplements, but you really should have a read of WP:AGF. I mean, you scold me for not discussing on the talk page, when it's actually you refusing to do that. You only started and then said "others should sort this out". You just act like you own that article.Tvx1 18:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of NCIS characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

CSI:Vegas

Your insistence on discussing Marg Helgenberger's appearance on CSI:Vegas in past tense when it has not happened yet is becoming increasingly disruptive. The second season has not begun production, much less been broadcast, so any mention of Helgenberger appearing must be in future tense and sourced. Moreover, the source used only mentions Peterson's decision not to return. For now, I've removed any mention of departing cast from the lead until the casting change can be appropriately written and sourced. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 15:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Request on 15:32:21, 1 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by CMGAMING

• CMGAMING (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:2023 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

CMGAMING (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Why you toxic

Declined articles for submission

I am wondering if there are double standards as the articles that you declined for submission from me, Draft: 2020 Honda Indy 200, Draft: 2021 Honda Indy 200, and Draft: 2021 REV Group Grand Prix at Road America have the exact or more of the amount of information as other Indycar Series race reports including 2021 XPEL 375, 2021 Genesys 300, 2021 Firestone Grand Prix of St. Petersburg, 2021 Honda Indy Grand Prix of Alabama, 2021 Chevrolet Detroit Grand Prix, 2021 GMR Grand Prix, 2022 XPEL 375, and 2022 Firestone Grand Prix of St. Petersburg which over half of the race reports since the start of the 2021 Indycar Series season (8/15). redlegsfan21 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, that's the discrepancy between using the AFC process and a registered autoconfirmed editor using the "create article". The latter simply doesn't need to meet certain quality standards before using the "create article" function and publishing it. If not suitable, it will go through one of the multiple deletion procedures. At AFC though we do apply certain quality standards and we want articles that are accepted to pass a certain bar so that they have no chance of going through the deletion procedures. Ultimately though this can differ slightly between different reviewers. We are far from perfect. Your submissions aren't far off meeting the bar. We simply want to give our readers more than a list of results tables they can simply go check on IndyCar.com. We don't want to be mirrors of other sites. Add some prose to describe what happened during those sessions (you can use the average F1 Grand Prix article as an example). Secondly, there needs to be more reliable, secondary, independent sources in the articles providing significant coverage of the races. Right now they almost only contain WP:ROUTINE links to the results tables.Tvx1 23:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Gent

First, phrases like "ridiculous obsession" in an edit summary could be considered a personal attack so let's take a step back from this for a second. The reason I've reverted it from KAA Gent back to Gent is because the club is commonly known as Gent. In prose and tables, it is reasonable to use the WP:COMMONNAME for football teams rather than the club's full official name. I've cited Liverpool as an example of another team for which this is the case but it is not the only one. Just looking at this season's Champions League you have Chelsea, Villarreal, Barcelona, Sevilla, Liverpool, Milan, Lille, Porto, Monaco, Genk and Riga which are all named after the place they come from and simply known as such. The context of the fact they are contained with a lit of football teams is simple enough for readers to understand that it's a football team and not a city. There is no reason for Gent to be an exception especially considering we've just refered to them as Gent in recent European competition articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Then the other articles need to be tweaked as well. There is no rule whatsoever that forbids to list anything other than the city they are named for. And WP:COMMONNAME only applies to article titles. Besides in the example of Gent it is referred to most commonly WITH a prefix in its national press. And if you look at the parralel article on the upcoming Champions League all but one of the clubs are listed with their club names and not just the city names. It doesn’t list things such as Paris, Munich, Dortmund, Madrid, Rekyavik etc. Your arguments just don’t hold water.Tvx1 14:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

You can't compare team's whose names are not just the city with teams whose names are just the city. It's Paris Saint-Germain and Bayern Munich so obviously that is what the link will be piped to. It is the club's common name. For teams which are just named after the place they come from like Gent and Liverpool and Villarreal which are commonly known in English as such, it makes no sense to not be consistent and have only one with the prefix/suffix and none of the others. If you're actually going to fairly compare Gent with Bayern Munich in this context, we don't pipe the link to FC Bayern Munich, do we? It's not Real Madrid CF, is it? There is no point in being inconsistent especially considering previous European competition articles have Gent as Gent and not KAA Gent. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said before, the other articles should be tweaked as well. Many wrongs don't make a right. And your claim about the WP:COMMONNAME of this article is actually contradicted by the title of the article for the club in question being K.A.A. Gent. You're analogy with Real Madrid and Bayern Munich also doesn't hold since in those cases Real and Bayern already provides necessary precision and adding FC there only creates double disambiguation which is overkill. In case of KAA Gent, KAA is actually what gives the necessary precision. In that case, the name of the club is not just "the name of the city" but actually KAA Gent. Writing Gent is just too vague. The fact that you yourself actually managed to incorrectly lecture me that KRC Gent is team from Genk and thus should be written with a "K" in the end should raise a massive red flag to you that there is a serious possibility that many readers are left not knowing which team is referred to when writing just "Gent". These Belgian teams are no that well known as you insist. KAA Gent can be best compared to AEK Athens, which we always write as such and not just "Athens", since KAA has a similar meaning to AEK and is not even remotely as common as the standard FC.Tvx1 05:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Opencross (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Image in Plat Jubilee

Just a passerbyer noticing a dispute between yourself and another editor on that article about the date of an image. But I believe the image description (or rather the dating in it) is incorrect, as there are Plat Jubilee banners in the background of that image. Leventio (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Tvx1

Thank you for creating 2022 Wimbledon Championships.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Unilaterally removing long-standing crucial text without consensus

Rather than doing this, next time take it to the talk page and seek consensus. Koppite1 (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You’re the one who made 6 reverts within 24 hours, in clear breach of a black and white rule, yourself. You should not be lecturing others about using the talk page, given that you made no effort whatsoever to use it yourself even though you should have done so a long time ago. Your warning was very much warranted and you should considered yourself very lucky not have been reported yet.Tvx1 16:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Grammarly errors

Many of the "errors" that you "corrected" in this edit are not errors at all, but simply the use of British English rather than American English or the choices of the writers. And how exactly does any of that slow down parsing of the page? Pages are simply displayed as written, without any attempt at parsing their grammar. Please revert this changing of other people's comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Because the Grammarly auto-correction function flags all of these things as potential errors. That slows the page down considerably while editing to the point it became near-impossible for me to add replies. Adding a section heading improved it, but it still remained very slow.Tvx1 17:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It flagged them as potential errors but many of them were not actual errors. One again, please revert, because you have changed other people's edits to a talk page, which goes against our guidelines. Grammarly is obviously not as clever as it or you thinks it is. Has it been somehow incorporated into Wikipedia? It seems that you have some sort of personal problem with your setup that doesn't apply to everyone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should check the page instead of continuing to lecture me. My edits have been reverted a while ago. And yes Grammarly automatically runs when using the source editing window.Tvx1 18:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, it certainly doesn't for me. Could you provide a link for where it was agreed that it should run automatically for you? I'm trying to help you by working out why a piece of badly functioning software should cause your page loads to be slow, but you are not helping me to help you by your attitude. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Where did I claim there was some sort of personal agreement with me to have this run for me? It's functionality that appears to have been added to the source editors at some point I don't even now for sure. It's very handy when writing articles, but it can obviously create problems when dealing with large talk page sections.Tvx1 19:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Tvx1, regarding edits like this: you may copyedit your own posts, but not those of other people except as permitted by WP:TPO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I got it already. I didn't reinstate my edits anymore, did I? There's no need for a handful of editors repeating the same thing to me. Besides, I don't think ScottishFinnishRadish removing a simply reply of mine in the process.Tvx1 19:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Really?

I could put on the same edit war template on your talk page but it seems so low for main editors at Tennis Project. I just can't bring myself to retaliate. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Retaliate? Where not in any fight here, you know! We are working at a community project here. It would be nice if you’d finally show some colleborative attitude here, instead of aggressively imposing your preference on the project and refusing any opposition. Such behaviour from such an experienced and respected editor is truly classless. I merely tried to reinstate the longstanding stable version of these templates. Your edits are the ones that created a change of situation longstanding and you were reverted. Thus YOU are the one needing a consensus. So please respect Wikipedia procedures and selfrevert your last edits as quickly as possible.Tvx1 23:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no collaboration here... just you and I reverting. This is pot kettle black and I'm not sure where it's coming from. There is no "longstanding stable version" of these templates except with the nationality intact. You can see it for years and years. One person changed it in March with no sources to support it, we get some complaints, so I fix it. We obviously see this from a completely different aspect and are at an impasse and, while I was writing an RfC, I see the item you left on my talk page that could just as easily been left on yours. I try not to do that to fellow long-term editors but it is certainly within your right to do so. If you want to talk about classless, your addition to my talk page was the definition. The RfC is up now so go ahead and add an oppose if you like. We don't usually get a lot of action at Tennis Project so we'll see how it goes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

What?

How is this not a published page? There is plenty of coverage of the 2023 Formula 1 Season... its less than a year away, there are driver confirmations, provisional calendars etc. Get off your horse man, plenty of people want to see this page. Grassfedjoe (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Execuse me? Who do you think you are coming to insult me on my talk page? I have done nothing with regards to that article for months.Tvx1 21:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pescara-Gonfalone.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pescara-Gonfalone.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aleksey Tupolev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 27 October 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) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Who's football

Howdy. Seeing as you were the 'only' editor to revert my removal of the pipelinks in the intros of the FIFA World Cup pages. I've opened up a discussion at WP:FOOTY. Please know, this isn't about who owns the name "football". But merely to help those who don't think of the same sport (association football), when they see "football". GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Country data Russia Darts Federation

Template:Country data Russia Darts Federation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. V27t (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment on my talk page through an edit summary

You have made a claim of removal of a signature, I have been through the edit history and cannot find what you are complaining about. If you can provide the claimed edit you are complaining about i would be most appreciative, otherwise you are confusing me up the wazoo. I also find what you have done very rude without a polite explanation, can you please do that in the future. Complain and run is not a good thing to do. Sparkle1 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Please tone things down. Whith this edit, you removed a template as well as the signature for the entire post that template was part of. That left a section with only your signature, making it look like you were talking to yourself. I didn’t run anywhere.Tvx1 19:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brazil women's national football team logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brazil women's national football team logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop WP:BLUDGEONing oppose !votes

Wikipedians are allowed to express their opinion on an RfC. You have made your point repeatedly. You do not need to respond to every oppose !vote as you have done here, here, here, and here. You are not going to change anyone's minds by doing so, and at worst, you are drawing attention to yourself. Please disengage now and let the discussion take its course. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you send the same message to the people who respond to all the criticism on the new skin. Moreover, there are 60+ oppose comments in the RFC. I haven’t remotely responded to every single one. Tvx1 19:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

We're not talking about anyone else's behavior here; we are talking about yours. Do you plan to stop bludgeoning votes or not? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

How many people would have to raise an issue with your behaviour before you think that they might have a point, Tvx1? As I count it, including myself in a sentence's time, the current tally will be five.

Your comments are bludgeoning because of the high quantity and the low density of information. Argumentative comments like Then why on earth do you oppose???? and No it isn’t even remotely. It’s far worse in every possible way. do not add to the discussion, aid the understanding of participants or contribute towards consensus. They just make the tone of discussion more unpleasant.

(For the record, I was writing this comment before your reply to me on the page.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What high quantity?? I made just over a handful replies to 70+ posted oppose opinions. I also honestly question why I'm being singled out here, despite multiple people already having replied to these opinions. Read the essay. Bludgeoning is something far worse than my comments. And falsely accusing someone is not acceptable. Tvx1 00:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

accusations?

Bringing this here as it's probably not useful there. Where did I accuse multiple editors of bad faith? I asked one editor to assume good faith, once, and another to stop bludgeoning the discussion, again once. Valereee (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Here you accused someone of bludgeoning, here you accused someone of issuing a personal attack. That's just not necessary.Tvx1 15:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Those are the two edits I was referring to. It's actually a good idea to warn someone that their edits are starting to feel like bludgeoning. It's actually a good idea to point out that an assertion of bad faith without evidence has been made and to ask someone to assume good faith. These are necessary things that editors must sometimes do to keep Wikipedia running. Valereee (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No these are not necessary because it's only your opinion that these comments are what you think they are. Just leave that. These sorts of accusations were also thrown out (not in particular by you) during the RFC itself and don't help the discussion at all. Tvx1 16:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree. We all should be calling out things like this. As often as possible we warn people before we take action. Valereee (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No we shouldn't. As I said it's only your opinion that these comments are what they are. Put yourself in the place of the people you're accusing. Would you like being incorrectly accused of bludgeoning? I'm sure you wouldn't. That particular accusation is something that is often thrown out and far too quickly in such discussions.Tvx1 17:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It is ironic that you ask her to think about how other editors feel about being accused of bludgeoning when you yourself seemingly failed to do that before accusing her of assuming bad faith. At any rate, they are not just her opinions—I agree with her assessment on both counts—and more importantly, if you see behavior you find problematic, you should not begin by confirming that a bunch of people agree with you and then all gang up on that person. You leave a polite note saying "Hey, I think this thing you are doing is wrong, please stop," or "Hey, it would be better if you did things like this," and if everyone involved is mature, as we would hope they are, everyone will be honest and civil and the whole thing will work out amicably. Simply ignoring problems, even borderline ones, is not a good solution because the behavior just continues. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I hate to keep pounding on this, and if you want me to go away, I will. But let's follow the idea of not warning people before taking action to its logical conclusion.

Suppose I see an instance of what to me feels like bludgeoning or making personal attacks, both of which are considered disruptive editing, and I don't say anything. The person, unwarned that their edits are being seen that way by at least one person, continues to do the same thing. So I p-block them for disruptive editing. Is that actually better?

The answer, according to WP policy, is no. Except in a very few cases -- egregious BLP violations, current edit-warring, outing, a few others -- we warn people, usually multiple times, before we take action. Valereee (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(Just to be clear, I wouldn't be able to actually take action in these particular cases, as I'm involved here.) Valereee (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Mate, it’s OK. Thanks for sticking up for me. I’m fine. Let’s all be a little less combative. starship.paint (exalt) 00:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Red-flagged races

Title above the table - Formula One World Championship races that have been red-flagged - The 1950 Indianapolis 500 counted as part of the World Championship and can be included in the list. Island92 (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, Formula One world championship races. It was a world championship race, just not a formula one. World championship isn’t synonymous with formula one.Tvx1 13:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong. The event was part of the 1950 Formula One World Championship under that name. It was a Formula One race at all effects.--Island92 (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No it wasn't. It was a championship car race organized and sanctioned by the AAA under their regulations. It merely counted for the World Drivers' Championship. No formula one car was involved whatsoever, formula one had nothing to do with it. The World Championship was not at all exclusive to formula one at all and a race counting for it did not always automatically make it a formula one race. In fact there have been two world championships without any formula one race at all. The formal exclusive "Formula One World Championship" wasn't established until decades later. Please educate yourself on the subject instead of acting so condescending.Tvx1 16:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

82 then! The first World Championship race was the 1950 British Grand Prix. Races following it were part of the World Championship, including Indy. Only rules did not count as per F1 race. That's why it should be included in the list anyway, starting from 1950.--Island92 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No it shouldn't be included. It was not a formula one race in any way. The article's scope is formula one races which were part of the world championship. Non-championship F1 races are outside of the scope, just like F2 and Championship Car race for the World Championship are not.Tvx1 16:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a formula one race per rules, but part of the World Championship as it was founded in 1950.--Island92 (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, question for you.

In regards to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 you stated that This action is one of the worst I have seen by the WMF. A RFC was held to gauge support and was ignored completetely. The changed was forced through unilaterally and if the WMF has any remote respect for their community they roll that back asap. How do you feel now about the skin, months after the discussion?

Before you answer this question, please read my user page to see why I am asking you this question. You do not have to answer this question at all if you wish. If you do answer this question, could you please state if you are okay with your username being used, possibly publicly? Thank you-- DisposableUser12345 (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I still feel the exact same way as I already did during the earlier pre-deployment RFC. It's rubbish. It has made the readability of the site worse in many ways. Moreover it was unilaterally enforced against the wishes of the community. Therefore I don't use the skin at all. There was no need for a change at all, nothing was WP:BROKEN.Tvx1 10:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Stockton Rush

I respectfully disagree with your decision to remove Stockton Rush from list of people who died by their own invention. While it is true that he did not invent the submersible, he did invent the world's first carbon-fibre deep-dive submersible, which killed him. This is just like several other people on the list who created their own version of a (failed) parachute. Regards, Will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.229.51.112 (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s not inventing, that’s altering a design. And you need to supply a reliable source to prove that no one else used such materials in a design before. Tvx1 10:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The general consensus on the Talk page for the article is that he qualifies under the guidelines given on the page itself. If you disagree with that, please discuss it on the talk page instead of continuing to remove him, contrary to the majority opinion. Dan0 00 (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Seconding this. Tvx1, you are asserting that Stockton needed to have been the "first" to do something to qualify, but the definition as given in the article does not support this. In contrary, the article is explicitly clear that it accepts those who simply designed the object which killed them. It need not be a novel object. TelepathicTwelve (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Tvx1, I noticed the disagreement on List of inventors killed by their own invention and just came by to give a friendly 3RR reminder. Specifically, you've already made three reverts in a 24 hour window ([6], [7], [8]), so further reverts may put you on the wrong side of 3RR. I understand that you're disputing the changes other editors want to make here, but I recommend sorting this out on the Talk page. If it's impossible to reach consensus there, see WP:Dispute resolution for alternative options, but do note that consensus not coming out in favor of your version of the article is not the same as a failure to reach consensus, as it seems other editors active on that page may be unconvinced.

Thanks, and happy editing! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

CSD G1

Hi, I recently declined three of your requests for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G1 (patent nonsense). This criterion does not cover draft pages that merely repeat the title, especially when there is a translation template that clearly identifies the subject, or indeed any pages where one can find some meaning. G1 only applies when all revisions of the page are entirely incoherent—specifically due to being meaningless of strings of characters or word salad. Please keep this in mind when tagging pages in the future. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 01:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brazil women's national football team logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brazil women's national football team logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

What's going on re: Melbourne?

Hi Tvx1. I'm at a loss to understand why our pages are now telling readers that the Australian Grand Prix is held in Port Phillip. Island92 told me to look at the 2023 page but I don't see anything from you there. Port Phillip is a local government area, so while it is technically correct that the Grand Prix does fall within the LGA's boundaries, LGAs aren't used to talk about locations. As a native resident of Australia I'm pretty confident about this. If I'm going down south for the weekend, I say I'm going to Margaret River, not to the Shire of Augusta–Margaret River. At the same time, I don't suddenly not live in Perth because I'm outside the LGA of the City of Perth. Saying the GP is in the City of Port Phillip is akin to saying it's in the Division of Macnamara. Sure, it's technically correct, but it's not a term that's used in a geographical sense. The GP is in Melbourne (the City of Port Phillip is one of the municipalities of Melbourne), so I can think of no reason why it was changed. F1 recognises this. I'm baffled as to why Wikipedia should for some reason consider an administrative area of a city a entirely different city and I'm very eager to learn the reason why. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Local governement area is what we use of for all the races, be it city, municipality or town. We can’t start making expections for every country. We don’t write only for Australians. And as far as I can see in these articles the cuty of Port Phillip is not a municipality of the city of Melbourne. Tvx1 12:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

We already make exceptions for several countries: Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Qatar, Mexico, Brazil, and Las Vegas all have their Grand Prixs listed with locations that are not LGAs. I'm not convinced at all that it is a consistent rule, nor am I convinced that that's the best rule. If you'd like to verify that Melbourne includes the City of Port Phillip as one of its municipalities, you can go to that article and click on the infobox link that reads LGA(s): 31 Municipalities across Greater Melbourne, which will lead you to this page. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that it should state "Melbourne". From the Melbourne article, "Its name generally refers to a 9,993 km2 (3,858 sq mi) metropolitan area known as Greater Melbourne, comprising an urban agglomeration of 31 local municipalities, although the name is also used specifically for the local municipality of City of Melbourne based around its central business area." Most importantly, sources state that it is in Melbourne, full stop. We don't need to do any more analysis than looking at the most reliable sources and seeing how they refer to it's location. [9][10][11][12] Cerebral726 (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Where_is_the_Australian_Grand_Prix?. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Tvx1, the status quo ante was that it said Melbourne. Please stop restoring your controversial change and discuss, per WP:BRD. A7V2 (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • You are wrong re which version should exist while this is discussed, but I will not continue reverting you. Please discuss yourself rather than telling me to. A7V2 (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

    Good that you will not continue reverting, which was totally unnecessary in any case to begin with. Hopefully we can now focus on discussing in the general discussion, not on one user’s talk page.Tvx1 09:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

    Your initial edit changed the long-standing status quo and were only there for a few weeks. Therefore the state the pages should be in while this is discussed is the original. If my edits were unnecessary, yours were significantly moreso. A7V2 (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

    No it didn’t. The consensus is actually a system that applies to all calendar entries. There are no individual consensi for each single race. That one race was apparently not following the system and I corrected it. If you want a change you need to find a consensus for a new system. But please stop

    discussing on my talk page. Tvx1 09:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Translation Request

Hi, I noticed you're on the list of available translators, more specifically Dutch-to-English. I have a source that's in Dutch and I was wondering if you're willing to translate it into English? Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

2023–2025 ICC World Test Championship

Your edit on 2023–2025 ICC World Test Championship was undid. For the cricket events they aren't grouped by years, instead they are grouped by Cricket Seasons.

• 2023 Season is April 2023 to September 2023.
• 2023–24 Season is October 2023 to March 2024.
• 2024 Season is April 2024 to September 2024.
• 2024–25 Season is October 2024 to March 2025.
• 2025 Season is April 2025 to September 2025.

Only the WTC Final is taking place in 2025 Season. Please remember this next time before editing any articles related to cricket competitions.

Sylvestrian 2024 Biology (Talk page) 07:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Shaylee Mansfield

It's not my fight so I'll let someone else decide whether it's important or not but just FYI that's the third time and third editor you've reverted (after your initial edit, which was reverted) in about 30 hours. To me, that says it's time to work it out on the talk page. I think there's a cultural, not just grammatical, issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ve alreay worked out it with the other editor (the same one twice, not two different ones). You getting yourself involved was utterly unessecary and is what is really dragging this on. Stop it. Tvx1 11:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Tvx1:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2400 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 31 October 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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Friends: The Reunion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burbank.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Translation

Hello Tvx1. I would like to ask if you could translate a Dutch sentence into English, please. The sentence is as follows: De meeste rollen zijn Bellucci op het lijf geschreven, dat zal niemand ontkennen. [13] Thanks in advance. Oroborvs (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Most of her parts fit Monica like a glove, no-one will deny that. Tvx1 13:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding Italian, what does this sentence mean? "Io non mi rifaccio". Oroborvs (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I need some context to translate that. I can have multiple meanings. Tvx1 13:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The title of the article: [14] This is to correctly fill in the |trans-title= parameter of the reference citation. Oroborvs (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe Bellucci means that she has not submitted to esthetic surgery. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I have found: "I do not remake myself". I think rifaccio corresponds to "remake", is that right?. Oroborvs (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s a literal translation, yes. But the word can have different translations depending on context. I don’t change myself or I don’t reshape myself might be a more relevant translation. Tvx1 18:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to stick to the first of the two options: "I don't change myself". Thanks. Oroborvs (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Page: Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence

Dear Tvx1 Thanks for your comment - I read again Wikipedia instructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Information_style_and_tone and checked again my resisting AI page, and I am afraid I do not see any apparent fault with this page being essay-like or being written as a personal reflection. Surely this is just my incompetence or author bias. Can you point me in the right direction? What should I change? Also please note that the page has just been cleared after several iterations involving more than one controller. You find the exchange here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Saltean#c-Fermiboson-20231208150900-Nomination_of_Resisting_AI%3A_An_Anti-fascist_Approach_to_Artificial_Intelligence_ Thanks for your help! Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Me again - I worked on the page and removed the "Essay-like" but if you feel this is not sufficient by all means reinstate it. Best Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me to improve this page. I see that you have reinserted the "Essay-like" with the note: This was never about sourcing, but about the tone of writing. This is still personam. It would help me considerably if you could point me to a sentence where I express a personal judgment as opposed to a judgment attributed to either the author or a specificied secondary source. Then I could strive to make it more impersonal, otherwise -- I admit -- I am frankly lost. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 09:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

Regarding this edit, please avoid edit warring, even if you think you are right. It is consider disruptive. Per WP:STATUSQUO and Wikipedia:Edit warring, I encourage you to revert yourself and engage in a discussion on the talk page. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tvx1 reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you. Amaury • 23:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Joely Collins) for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joely Collins. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You are already way past WP:3RR. See also WP:BRD, WP:ONUS, WP:STATUSQUO, and WP:CONSENSUS. You were bold. That's great. When you were reverted, you should have gone to the article's talk page to discuss, not continue to revert. Since you are the one trying to make this change, the onus is on you to start a discussion. You do not have consensus for your change. Until and if a consensus is reached, the status quo remains. Amaury • 23:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Amaury. Where is your warning for the other person? They actually reverted multiple editors on sight for months at Joely Collins. Tvx1 23:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

He was restoring the article to the WP:STATUSQUO, as he was today. When an editor attempts to add something, whether it's you or whoever, and they are reverted, it is their duty to start the discussion and discuss the matter, not the one who reverted. Your refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK and discuss the matter instead means you are either unable or unwilling to abide by simple procedures. Instead, you kept reverting on your insistence of "I am right!1!1" Amaury • 23:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

But they were edit warring on that article for MONTHS. Restoring to status-quo also doesn't give one the right to ignore policies like WP:3RR. And I actually did try to discuss with them on their page and it's doesn't help. They on the other hand never made any attempt to discuss.Tvx1 00:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)