User talk:Admanny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your recent editing history at Australian Grand Prix shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• 2018 Mexican Grand Prix
• 2018 United States Grand Prix
• 2018 Japanese Grand Prix
• 2018 Russian Grand Prix
• 2018 Italian Grand Prix
• 2018 Belgian Grand Prix
• 2018 Hungarian Grand Prix
• 2018 British Grand Prix
• 2018 French Grand Prix
• 2018 Canadian Grand Prix
• 2018 Monaco Grand Prix
• 2018 Spanish Grand Prix
• 2018 Bahrain Grand Prix
• 2018 Australian Grand Prix
• 2017 Brazilian Grand Prix
• 2017 Mexican Grand Prix
• 2017 United States Grand Prix
• 2017 Malaysian Grand Prix
• 2017 Belgian Grand Prix
• 2017 Austrian Grand Prix
• 2017 Azerbaijan Grand Prix
• 2017 Monaco Grand Prix
• 2017 Bahrain Grand Prix
• 2017 Chinese Grand Prix
• 2017 Australian Grand Prix
• 2016 Mexican Grand Prix
• 2016 Italian Grand Prix
• 2016 Belgian Grand Prix
• 2016 British Grand Prix
• 2016 Austrian Grand Prix
• 2016 Canadian Grand Prix
• 2016 Monaco Grand Prix
• 2016 Russian Grand Prix
• 2016 Chinese Grand Prix
• 2015 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
• 2015 Brazilian Grand Prix
• 2015 Mexican Grand Prix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

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

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

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. —SquidHomme ^(talk) 00:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—Bagumba (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into 2020 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Cut and paste moves violate copyright, if you have a problem, complain to 5225C for creating all the season articles months in advance in draftspace Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: why did you revert this. You should have kept it as it was and just put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.
SSSB (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page move is the correct way, history attribution requires an administrator to waste time on it, when all we need is a page mover. Cut and paste moves are never acceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for this to be done. Although hopefully next season people won't create these race articles in draft space months in advance, as it's been loads of hassle to get them moved. Better to do things properly than speedily, WP:NODEADLINE still applies. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: Had a whole week to get it moved, race weekend's here, still not moved, cut-and-paste to get the bare minimum done and have an admin fix afterward via history merge is warranted. I will not hesitate to do this again if scenario reoccurs. Admanny (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That {{re}} won't work because you didn't add you signuature in the same edit. Let me do the honours @Joseph2302:.
SSSB (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: rather than ask for a page mover on WT:F1 (as you did yesterday), why didn't you go straight to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests? That is literally what that page is for.
SSSB (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake, I apologise, obviously the technical requests board is the correct place. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing improper about creating draft articles and moving over redirects, and it has allowed race reports to be better prepared for publication. Quality is the idea, not speed.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means it will start the season with the 2020-spec Ferrari 065 engine, but it will be updated to the 2021-spec 066. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: I think that is the actual name of the engine used. Similarly is the 062 EVO used a couple years prior. Admanny (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct! Confirmed here. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tvx1 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The sources included at this point only demonstrate that this subject exists, but do little with regards to notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Russian Automobile Federation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Russian Automobile Federation, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tvx1 13:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Admanny! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tvx1 13:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where you found name like "Hard Rock Stadium Circuit"? I can only see 960 results and most of them comes from text like "Hard Rock Stadium circuit is". Eurohunter (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The move was to disambiguate from the actual stadium itself. I agree the “Circuit” does not exist, but it warrants its own disambiguation that is clear enough. Admanny (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambugation name should be in brackets oherwise as you see it's missleading and false. Eurohunter (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was disambiguated when I created it. What was wrong with that?
SSSB (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: version should be restored. Eurohunter (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were two starts red-flagged. The first with all drivers on the grid, Pérez absent, the second in which all started from the pit lane, including Pérez. Island92 (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first start is the real start of the Grand Prix. Island92 (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if we don't do iOS 17 beta <number>, it doesn't make sense. we have ALWAYS done it like that, we have never done it where we only do "beta". please stop doing that. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 00:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at last year [1], as well as [2], [3], [4] to name a few. The first version of every beta is and has always been referred to "beta" and not "beta 1". Admanny (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Admanny i’m going to warn you one more time. please stop actively reverting edits to add less useful information to the articles or templates. apple’s designation doesn’t matter. we are not apple. we do not copy paste or mimic what they call their betas. ios 17 is at beta 1, we refer to beta 1 because of the fact that it is the first beta, and in the case of ios version history, that is what is mentioned in the sources we use. so kindly stop reverting or i will have no choice but to bring this up to administrators. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 02:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you've ignored my message above. That's not boding too well in your case against me. Pinging @Guy Harris: as he's the primarily the one responsible for updating the Template:Latest preview software release pages. Admanny (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Admanny i don't care about the previous ways it was handled. It is not the typical wording used to refer to beta versions - Apple's designation seriousy does not matter here, what matters is the way news publications refer to it. We are at the first iOS 17 beta version - therefore, Beta 1 should be used and not "Beta" as it does not make sense. Especially not with the way we use the release date to signify an iOS beta's release date. For every single iOS 16.x release on iOS version history, "Beta 1" has always been used. It is how it is done now, so stop unnecessarily edit warring and reverting edits for no reason. that is not how you edit wikipedia. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 02:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems to me you're editing against the consensus? Talk about "that is not how you edit wikipedia"... do you have a better explanation? Admanny (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am editing against the CURRENT consensus. "Beta" does NOT make sense. Guy Harris has done the same thing I've done, so you have no valid grounds to revert my edits, not to mention you've violated WP:3RR twice now. Admittedly I kinda violated it as well, but that was a genuine mistake on my part as I did not realize the reversion number, but constantly reverting my edits for no valid grounds over some prior consensus, and ignoring the citation reference, is in severely bad taste. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 02:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still see [5] at 17.0 beta. For consistency across all iOS pages we keep it simply as "beta" and nothing more. It's actually pretty strange to go against Apple's official designation since they're the ones making the software... Admanny (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Citation reference. If you look closely here [6] it literally uses the same exact citation as in the iOS version history page. So that argument isn't going to work either. Honestly, we never had a problem until you arrived. Admanny (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Admanny i have contributed ~570 edits to iOS version history, therefore I am a pretty prominent and active editor to that page, so i don't believe i'm the issue. you're unnecessarily reverting edits over a number, and contributing to an edit war over that too. Uisng "Beta" is misleading because the release date is typicaly always updated after each new beta, and we are at Beta 1. See here, here, and here. Three major sources right there. All say Beta 1. I am going against the citation by using "Beta 1", and that should be respected. You are the only one who has ever removed "beta 1" after I added it. You do not have voice of reason here. I am going against the current consensus. If something isn't removed for a long time, that typically becomes the new consensus. Therefore your reasons for reverting are redundant and honestly quite disrespectful to me as an editor. We do not use Apple's beta scheme. We are not Apple, we do not own their website. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 02:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources, while good and all, explain exactly why we follow Apple's designation. Your sources are only a few examples, and it seems like you've handpicked ones to argue your case. Unfortunately... [7] notice how they say "first iOS 16.6 beta" then [8] they don't say "second iOS 16.6 beta", they go straight to "iOS 16.6 beta 2". It is this that explains why we follow Apple's lead, so thank you for proving my point. Admanny (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not prove your point. You're actively being hostile over a number. Wikipedia editors should not act in that way. And I have seen MANY news sources that say "Beta 1". I picked a few of the most popular, and no I did not handpick. See here too. Another one. You have four sources now that prove my point. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You literally just did again. When in doubt... you go right to the source, which is Apple themselves. Plain and simple. Admanny (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except in this case, NO. Because iOS version history almost got deleted due to the use of Apple website sourcing. Using Apple sources is way too close to the subject. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well Windows 10 version history and Windows 11's as well is full of Microsoft links. That's not a good argument at all. Admanny (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are bad examples, and I'm surprised they haven't been AFD'd by now, but iOS version history's AfD had a major discussion about how we shouldn't use sources too close to the subject, especially first-party sources, because of WP:CORP and other related policies. I don't know why you're refusing to accept current consensus on the beta naming but I went and changed literally every mention of beta to beta 1 and you're still edit warring for no good reason. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then go ahead and AFD them. Don't forget Linux kernel version history, Ubuntu version history, and more. Wikipedia is full of holes but what makes it very jarring is the inconsistency between pages. Why are we arguing over an issue that will be gone literally when beta 2 releases? If you're going to accept my deal then don't forget about the Template:Latest_preview_software_release pages as well. For iOS 17, iPadOS 17, macOS 14 Sonoma, watchOS 10, and everything else. Admanny (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Admanny its kind of sad how you're trying to blackmail an editor with more experience and edits than you, especially over something as miniscule as how beta versions are referred to. there's nothing wrong about referring to the first ios 17 beta as beta 1 when that is literally true. saying "ios 17 beta" is misleading and doesn't explain what beta version it even is. it is inherently misleading, and you are downright encouraging policies / guidelines like WP:CORP to be violated. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about blackmail... now you're trying to blackmail me into being convinced that a more experienced editor knows better? Quite ironic... and if you're going to argue WP:CORP then might as well put literally every single version history page on the line. Windows, Linux, Chrome, Firefox, everything. Maybe WP:NOTACHANGELOG is a better argument, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Admanny (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not blackmailing you at all. i'm trying to explain why "ios x beta" is misleading. and chrome's version history article was already deleted due to the changelog policy. and the ios version history article had the exact same wp:notchangelog argument raised - it stll received an overwhelming keep vote, however in an rfc re: that policy, it was heavily mentioned that wp:corp should be followed for all articles related to software regardless as to whether or not they fall within wp:notchangelog. therefore, using apple's website as a source is unacceptable, and so are all Windows version history articles using entirely microsoft links. using ms links alone does not establish notability for either windows version history articles to exist, and using ms links for the overwhelming majority of sources brings both article's notability into major question. i'm trying to reason with you, and explain why "beta 1" should be used and yet you're actively being hostile. i genuinely do not understand why. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying "beta" should be used because it will break consistency with all of Apple's other articles. I already said I'll be fine if every page's "beta" is changed to "beta 1".. I have no problem with that. I'm just saying consistency matters. That is literally it. Every page is going to break some WP in one way or another so I find arguing for one is pointless because another WP will push it the other way. Admanny (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

then change it. it's not my job to update every single page. macOS, watchOS, tvOS, etc are not my focus. my focus is strictly on iOS, and iOS gets the most attention on wikipedia out of all of their other platforms. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not changing it because I recall Guy Harris had changed "beta 1" back to "beta" before so we stuck with it. Why fix something that isn't broken? Admanny (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

because its misleading and causes confusion? - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're the first one in a long time if ever to have raised hell about this. I'm not the one trying to cause confusion, I'm only trying to keep consistency. Admanny (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i updated all templates and pages. now i'm leaving this discussion here. :/ - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 04:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough! Pretty sure some will get reverted by other people though so whatever Admanny (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Admanny forgot to ping. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Evelyn Marie: I'll make you a deal though... edit every single reference of "beta" to "beta 1" and I'll stand down. Your take... Admanny (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the problems with iOS version history wasn't that it cited Apple, it was that people were just copying and pasting Apple's description of features and fixes, making it a copyright violation. If calling a first beta just "beta", because that's what Apple calls it, is a copyright violation, then calling a second beta "beta 2", because that's what Apple calls it, would be a copyright violation as well.

Another problem may have been that, even with non-copyvio descriptions, too many of the sources were from Apple rather than third-party sites. I don't see the analogy between that and "Apple doesn't call it beta 1, they just call it beta". This is more like "Apple calls it the iPad mini, with a lower-case 'm', rather than the iPad Mini". One could argue based on matching what Apple calls it, one could argue based on "this is just the first beta, not the one-and-only beta"/"the lower-case 'm' is just a marketing affectation", or one could argue based on what third-parties call it (although many of them don't call it "beta 1", they call it the "first beta" or something such as that).

I don't have a strong attachment to any of those positions; I use "beta" in the templates just because that's what Apple calls it, but if somebody were to add "1" after it, I'd just shrug and move on (as it will probably neither be "beta" nor "beta 1" by, say, the end of July, for reason that Admanny noted). Guy Harris (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just jump in here and add that the current source used for the "beta 1" designation (the MacRumors source also mentioned above) does not support that name in the first place. Apple's name here has preference, we don't decide what an OS version is called. All other Apple pages also use "beta" to indicate the first beta, not "beta 1". When people start calling iOS iPhoneOS, that doesn't mean we switch to it just because a couple of sources call it that. That is not how that works. And until the point where Apple releases a second beta, we don't even know if "beta 1" is even necessary.

And while highly unlikely, especially for a major release, it would not be the first time Apple released only 1 beta for an iOS update. But we don't know that yet. There is nothing misleading about calling "iOS 17 beta" by its name.

To chime in on the source debate. Using first party sources is perfectly fine. The Windows 10 and 11 version history pages are actually a prime example on how to do it right. The problem with the old version history wasn't the inclusion of first party sources, as mentioned before, but the fact that those first party sources were blatently copied. We shouldn't care if a source is first or third party. As long as it is objective and used in an objective manner, it is fine. Replacing a source because it is a first party source is unnecessary. If it is better and provides more correct information, then sure, go ahead. But in this case not only does it convey the same information, the new source does not support the information that you claim it provides.

As a matter of fact, this is a case where the Windows 11 version history actually does provide a similar situation. The updates under the "Canary channel" are not for Windows 11. We know that. Microsoft knows that internally. But they keep communicating that it is Windows 11, so "Windows 11" we keep calling it. Similar to how most of Windows 11's preview version history is listed on the Windows 10 version history page. Because that was the name it had.--YannickFran (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figured I'd just come talk it out with you first. Just want to let you know my point of view on this:

• Existing ten CFP brackets don't have rankings, nor do they have italics for conference champions
• In my mind (and I suspect for other readers) the bracket looks very cluttered with all of the rankings and italics in there
• There is no explanation of what the difference is between the rankings and the seedings (readers that are not CFB fans will be made very confused by this) and there's also no explanation for the italics
  • I think adding a key would make the article and bracket template way more cluttered than it already is - it could be so simple!
• Other tournament brackets for NCAA sports don't include rankings in the bracket template (men's/women's basketball, soccer, FCS football, etc)
• We don't really care what ESPN does, that's just their stylistic decision because they're the ones that get to eat up four hours of air time dissecting the rankings themselves, since it is a rankings reveal show.
• Readers that care about the rankings and conference champions can find them easily on the CFP article itself.

Just how I look at it, it seems like way better of a solution to exclude the extra stuff on the bracket template like we do for lots of other stuff, and let that info exist elsewhere in the article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the CFB wiki infrastructure is built for the new seeding. Each team's yearly page is still using the CFP ranking and without retooling can't be accommodated to fit the new seeding parameter. We're going to have to make the page look like this where seeding is in parentheses with the rankings intact. Example: (12) No. 16 Clemson. Until that happens, removing rankings from the bracket would create confusion. Admanny (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that we'll have to come up with some new system because this is the first time that seeds don't correlate with rankings in the CFP, so I see where you're coming from with that. Could we at least compromise for now and remove the italics for conference champions? I think that was a good idea for the projected brackets during the season but now that all of the conference championships are over and the bids have been determined, I don't think that information is as relevant anymore. Plus it saves us an explanatory note. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would be fine with me. In the meantime, I have myself done the work to fit in a new seeding parameter to look exactly like the aforementioned North Carolina basketball page. Except, it needs approval since I don't have perms. If you could get Template talk:CFB schedule#Template-protected edit request on 8 December 2024 propagated and approved, then I am cool with removing rankings from the bracket as well. Admanny (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I'll see if I can ask some people with that permission to get that parameter added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to circle back around and say thank you - both for talking out the issue with me yesterday and for your work to get the schedule parameter added. I'm sorry for being a little harsh to you in my edit summaries yesterday and I appreciate your patience. Thanks for all your work and I look forward to continuing to work with you on the CFP this year! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]