Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:21, 29 November 2014

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

Conflict with user Lukejordan02

Hello Bretonbanquet. I saw that you had problem with that user at Thin Lizzy discography. I'm having similar dispute at Megadeth discography. Can you help me out?--Retrohead (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Level 7 League Table Colors

I believe that the colors should match with the Football Conference and the Football League, where the yellow-green color means playoff and light green means promotion. I would like to know why you think they should be the other colors. Thanks Evertonfc13 (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because it was different in the past, that doesn't mean it can't be changed. It should be uniform throughout with what the colors mean. (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be very harsh on the subject, so I will change it back. (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment wanted

Hi, can you make a comment about the genre discussion over at Talk:Youthanasia thank you. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know enough about it to comment, but it looks like you're being overrun there anyway. Misplaced Pages is a case of picking your battles, and you might have lost that one. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, they clearly disagree with the genre that's fine with me, thanks anyway. Have you been watching the World Cup, I'm shocked at Spain gone already. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Yeah, bit disappointed with them! Chile were pretty good though. I don't fancy England much... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither do I, I must say if England do get knocked out this week I hope the Netherlands win because being a Manchester United fan it would do my ego good :). Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Haha, take whatever consolation you can! The Netherlands look as good as anyone, but look out for those Germans... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but if you could comment at Talk:Damnation (album) I would appreciate it, it's more to do with wether or not its a genre so far 1 person has replied and agrees with me. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, it looks like people agree with me on this one. P.S - Weren't England a load of crap! Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you lose some, you win some! Unlike England who lose them all! Poor show from them, particularly the last goal. Just really poor. Bring on Euro 2016, I guess! Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Bring on Euro 2016 (but first the Netherlands to win this World Cup), it would look really good if his (Louis van Gaal) last time with the Netherlands squad was winning the World Cup, before taking charge of United. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the Netherlands win – good side. You might get a few Dutch players truning up for you next season too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep I am personally hoping for Robben and Daley Blind (especially seeing how well Robben and van Persie play together.)

That would make a huge difference to your side. Interesting! Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A little help?

Hi, could you please explain how to create archives on your talk page as it has been suggest to me that I should start doing it, cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You can either move your talk page to a different name using the move function, or what I do is just create an archive page and copy and paste all the talk into it. For example, if you created User:Lukejordan02/Talk archive, you could just copy and paste all the discussions you want to keep over to that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, all this stuff is too confusing at first glance. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it takes time. I learned a lot by being nosey and just literally copying what other people do. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

More help (I know)

Sorry to bother you again (I bet you hate me :)), if you get time could you give this page I created a quick check and tell me if it looks ok, cheers Cover Version. Lukejordan02 (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine! Needs some categories, mainly, and maybe a review or two? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Per MOS: my misuse of italics in song titles

Thank you. My apology for creating the extra work. BellwetherToday (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello! Would you be interested in this discussion regarding the issues of the Wagnerian rock article? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Thanks! Johnny338 (talk) 02:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Whitesnake

I really don't care what genre Whitesnake is. But would you please add a source to that? It really helps to keep the genre warriors in check. There was an Allmusic source which you did remove. Another: rateyourmusic.com Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Club season articles

Hello, Yes I am trying to keep all clubs from Premier League through to League Two all updated. Not all clubs have the same format. What is your preferred club? Skyblueshaun (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Leyton Orient. Ok I think I have a done quite a bit of work on that season article. I am not a Orient fan but hope it is quite accurate. Skyblueshaun (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I personally think the current one is a reasonable one. If you feel like you want to change I will not object against the revert. Skyblueshaun (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes maybe, but unfortunately your edit was un-soured. I added a complete whole new edit which was sourced. I got warned a few weeks ago about adding results with no reports. Skyblueshaun (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I tried adding "+ result (report later)" in the edit summary but that didn't buy it for me either. I suppose when the official competition matches are played then reports will be available reasonably quick after full time. Skyblueshaun (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose so yeah but Leyton Orient was his last club so that was my reasoning to why. Skyblueshaun (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I have 2 points to point out to you. 1) When adding the goalscorers only show the players surname or given name not the full name. 2) When attendances if on the report adding it says in brackets the away attendance please also add aswell. Thanks Skyblueshaun (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Keatings

Talkback

BaldBoris 13:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys and Haken Arizona edit war report

Why did you hint at me having personal motives in filing the report on their edit war? That has nothing to do with it. If had conflicting opinions with PM in the past it was because op the contents of the opinions not simply because it were PM's opinions. The only goal I have with filing this report is for both users to ditch their "overenthusiastic reverting" as you so kindly formulated it for once and for all. I should remind you that edit warring led to the 2014 Formula One season being fully protected four times during the last 9 months, do I. Such behavior leads to nothing. That is why report edit warring when I encounter it. Tvx1 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've replied there. You're reading too much into my comment that you don't get on with PM. As far as I can see, you don't. I've watched and been involved in massive, massive debates between several of us in the past, and the two common factors in dragging them out are you and PM. The current edit war is tiresome, but hardly a raging inferno, and the discussion is producing results. It seems an odd time to take to the drama boards. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, If it had been a first time or a rare occurrence I would have definitely limited it to a warning on their talk pages. However since this is continuous behavior by one of the users involved I decided to go on and report it. Why do you even downplay this as "over-enthusiastic reverting"? For crying out loud, it has been so serious on occasion that an article was put under full protection more than once. All I wish to become by taking these steps is to prevent that from happening ever again and for all of us to be able to have civil and constructive discussions in the future, instead of the aggressive and disruptive ones we had in recent times. Why is this now all played out against me? Do you actually think Prisonermonkeys attitude in their recent reaction in the report is acceptable by any standard? Tvx1 (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"All played out against you"? Overreact much? First, nobody's going to say that the season article was protected entirely because of PM. It always takes two to tango, and other editors have always been part of it. Second, the discussions that have dragged on have again not always been PM's fault. At least one was your fault, and others have been the fault of other editors. I've played my own part in dragging the out sometimes. The recent exchange on the report page is exactly why I said you two don't get on. You don't. I'm not picking sides, but I'm equally not going to pretend that there's only one editor at WP:F1 that is occasionally troublesome. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Not played out against me? I overreact?? Did you actually read Prisonermonkeys' rant in that report? He made it look like I was the bad guy and PM's the poor angel that never does anything wrong and is being hunted down for no good reason. I didn't say that PM's caused the full protections on their own. I stated they were involved in edit warring that became serious enough to warrant protection. Do you actually think I enjoy reporting users? I have one golden rule about that: The best edit war report is no report at all! Just like anyone else here I'd wish not to have to report such behavior at all. I was entirely uninvolved in this dispute and had nothing personal to gain whatsoever if action were taken against any of the users reported. The only thing there was to gain was for the edit war to be halted. Again, I have no personal wrath against that user by any means. The only fact is that Prisonermonkeys wrongly believes I do. I would love to get along with one another much and be able to have more civil and constructive discussions. I have no problem to admit that I can be very passionate at times during discussions. But that's not out of bad faith. My only concern is to present things in the best way as possible to our readers while repecting the article guidelines and policies. Prisonermonkeys, however, is convinced that I have no other goal than to cause disruption to the discussions and the articles. I'm totally at loss there. You known why my biggest concern is with the outcome of this report: PM has once again failed to realize that edit warring is banned by policy and is not they way to get things right. Tvx1 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

None of this suggests to me that you and PM don't have a bit of a problem with each other. Let's be clear, I'm not saying there's bad faith, but you rub each other up the wrong way sometimes. You reported him, and he reacts more strongly than he would if someone else reported him. I think that would work the other way too, i.e. if he reported you for something. Look, let this one go and we'll see what happens next. Let's try and keep the ~dramah~ to a minimum. Maybe next time you see edit-warring involving PM, let me know and I'll try and calm it down without making a report somewhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion noted. I'll take it into account.Tvx1 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So, three months later we have had another massive edit war between the exact same two users about a similar matter: inclusion of attendance figures. You suggested I could seek your advice on how to deal with it. Well, here I am. By the way, thanks for reporting PM and the IP recently for their edit-warring on the same article. You would have thought the block who had made them have some insight in their behavior. Wishful thinking, unfortunately. PM appealed their block straight away, which was rightfully declined, and edited the disputed content almost instantaneously after their block expired. And as we know PM engaged in another edit war on the same article a week and half later. Tvx1 (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. I'll have a closer look at it later, and I might ask an admin and see what they think. I'm tired of seeing constant activity (reverts) on the same few articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Tvx1, PM and haken arizona both blocked. No great surprise, to be honest. PM wasn't wise in taking it to DRN while still edit-warring. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it as well. That's two blocks for PM's in about three week. I think it's really sad it had to come to this.Tvx1 (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. He's a decent editor but he doesn't seem to tell the difference between vandalism and a content dispute (same goes for haken arizona), and that's a recipe for problems. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Awkward BLP case, help wanted

I wonder if you'd care to take a look at Adam Farley while it's quiet? It needs someone who understands the problems of verifying football claims outside top echelons, and I can barely remember who won the World Cup. I only stumbled on it when tracking an IP from a DeFacto SPI but then I managed to get involved. There's material the subject would like to disappear, there's claims that might be true and creditable but are unverified and tagged, there's one probably-unverifiable claim with a price that may have been inflated, there's been an NLT incident, the editor who seems to be the subject would like to just turn the clock back but doesn't understand Misplaced Pages processes.... I did wonder if it might all simply fail notability but he came on as a sub in one Everton game. It's a mess and I'm just working off general WP principles. A bit of expertise would help. NebY (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - glad you found it interesting and looked so closely. It's good to know you're seeing the same problems as well as having a clearer view than I on verifiability and plausibility. I'd had this idea that somebody somewhere might be compiling yearbooks for the Northern Premier League or suchlike. So we have material which could generously be left still tagged as citation needed (e.g. player of the year awards), some that's questionable and has long been sitting with a tag (Youth Cup player of the match - but I've just noticed there were two legs to the final, so maybe not so dubious), and some that isn't realistically verifiable at all in that records just won't exist to confirm or deny it however plausible or implausible (e.g. quote from subject, negotiations, price), not all of which has been tagged yet. I suppose I should make a start soon, at least on removing the tagged dubious and unverifiable parts and tagging some more.

It is going to leave a more negative article. I've got a lot of sympathy with the principles of a right to be forgotten, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and of course Misplaced Pages's own BLP policy. But this subject's notable - in Misplaced Pages terms - only for football, and the betting is a quite outstanding part of his football career and might even confirm WP notability, even though it doesn't reflect at all well on the person. All rather depressing, so I may not rush back to it! NebY (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Gone but now back..

After 10 months in the hospital, I am back, albeit slowly right for the next couple of weeks, but I'm staying in my father's home until I'm more stabilized and everything in my body doesn't hurt just from standing or sitting! So much has changed since I've been gone; rules that relate to what I do so I'm going to have plenty of questions. Happy to be home though. Missed you and a few more here.. funny. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Orient-Villa

I had noticed that result last night, while having a look at other things. Very busy of late with relatives over, but trying to keep as much looking at the scores as possible. Let's face it; we were out of the competition in round 1, in our only game that hasn't had just one goal in it, all season! Should hopefully beat Sheffield United in the next round, surely? Craig(talk) 18:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Nine points, three wins and three goals. It's the exact opposite of last year as goals go! That said, we've had the relegated teams and Rotherham to start with. Tough tests. Fleetwood are top at the moment aren't they? I know that matters not at this early stage, but there's always time for Orient to charge the league. Craig(talk) 20:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"We only fielded 5 first-choice players against Villa"... Sounds like Celtic syndrome is working its way around the country. Rest 10 players for their league game at Inverness: Lost. Bring those players back into the European game against Maribor: Lost.

Maybe the reverse will work for Orient! Craig(talk) 20:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Pretty embarrassing for Scottish football, as a whole, of late. Oh well, the international team only has Germany to face next Sunday Batter down the Cod Army! Craig(talk) 19:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the barometer for Scotland's result, is if we better Brazil's score from the World Cup. Anything better than 7! Craig(talk) 10:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

We already knew that! Craig(talk) 13:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Back Street Crawler. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Having spotted this I redirected it to the band. Britmax (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ta very much, cheers :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No source in lede

Take a look at any GA or FA, no sources in lede. I've read it in the guidlines (it's around somewhere) where it states anything in lede should be substantiated in the body. I concur on nationality btw, checked through google and most sources state Adele is a Brit (your comment about English mother and Welsh father would validate that)...I've seen English but it's not as frequent. A hidden note beside her nationality would suffice I'd say. RyanTQuinn (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Singapore Grand Prix

In your the edit reports on your recent edits on the 2014 Singapore Grand Prix article you wrote "Retirements per source given". However, there is no source regarding the race result currently in the article. So I was wondering which source you were actually referring to. On a side note, the retirement explanations keep getting changed, so I wonder which are the correct ones. Tvx1 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Adele

Sorry for my late reply, I've had an incredibly busy weekend! Just to clarify--it's not an issue of citizenship, but of nationality. So, it is perfectly acceptable for a person to affirm their nationality is English, and have this included on Misplaced Pages, even though there is no such thing as English citizenship. The source you have provided infers that Adele prefers to be known as British, and such a statement (unless there are contrary ones) overrides a preference to be known as the nationality of the particular country of the UK you are from (e.g. Shirley Bassey is born in Wales and so can be considered Welsh, if the lead sentence describes her as "Welsh", but she has indicated she was Britis, then "British" would take preference in the lead sentence. You can also see the extensive nationality debates over at J.K. Rowling's page, who is an English-born Scottish resident who is determined to be British). For those reasons, I support your assertion that Adele is British and its inclusion in the article, and, just to clarify, the only reasons I did revert were based on the fact that that there appeared to be an edit war on first glance, it had been "English" for so long and these issues are often contentious. Best, —JennKR | ☎ 18:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

AC/DC

I don't agree with any of your arguments! This idea is to match with the timeline... No need to talk about it much longer... Time for changes has come! Please respect my edit which is simply logical and... much better! HurluGumene (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

To discuss the article with you is pointless since as an "almighty" wiki administrator you already have made up your mind with my edit...! By the way, I didn't start an edit war: you did! HurluGumene (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

dont worry, hes just a prick, i made an edit to the track listings for rock or bust, they were actually true, but he wants to be a little bitch, well, i was right, fuckface— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.123.159 (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? Neither the other bloke above you, nor I, have made any edits there today. The guy who reverted you was someone else. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Plus of course, your edit for the track listing was not even close to the facts. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Track list numbering

Thank you for your comments at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple. A Rfc is currently open at Template talk:Track listing to finally settle the dispute. It would be greatly appreciated if you could give your opinion on the matter one last time. Lewismaster (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"UK" in football articles

There is to be no "UK" in football articles, because the UK does not exist in football. Velociraptor888 04:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It does exist in football. Only two years ago their team competed in the olympics. Hence some current footballers have represented both their Home Nation as well as the UK in football. Furthermore, the infobox does not depend on the career of the individual. When we provide a birthplace in an infobox we provide geographical accurate information. An in geography the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does exist. Tvx1 (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Japanese Grand Prix

I too saw the helicopter fly, but there may be some sort of liability issue in that while able to fly as seen on TV, it may not have been cleared to carry a patient in hazardous weather. This though is mere speculation. I had also read that the nearest appropriate hospital in Suzuka did not have a helipad, but I found nothing official indicating that was the case.

Twirlypen (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Russian GP

It is vandalism. The IP editor is deliberately removing content and is refusing to let the page develop, even after it has been explained to him. Kapirulin, whoever he is, is nobody; I can't find anything on him, so he's a footnite. And I haven't had the chance to develop the GP2/3 article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys try to pipe two links to same (!) article (instead of one, as always). Also he removed one key (!) foreground man from the photo description, leaving two others. Also he removed Category:Current sports events many times, but it's a current. Also he violated WP:3RR not using content dispute rules. Who is vandal here? 46.200.32.235 (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't call him names, that's a fast track to a block. Right now, I suggest leaving the article alone. Neither of you are helping yourselves. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no other picture. The point of the footnote is to explain his presence without putting undue weight on him, since there no other picture is available. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This guy is on foreground, and no reason to remove him from description. As we can see on photo, he signed agreements with Bernie, not background president. And no reason to pipe two links to the same article about GP2/GP3. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to move the discussion to the article talk page, but I have my doubts about its effectiveness. I went to bed, came back to the article six hours later, and within minutes he was reverting edits. I probably shouldn't have done that, but yesterday he was pretty aggressive, refusing to let the article develop until he got his way. I needed to know if he would continue to sit on the page today and if he would be likely to be disruptive during the race. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am only constructive. Bianchi crash has direct impact to Sochi race - only 21 car on the grid now. It's an info for article lead definitely. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. There's a disagreement and you're not talking. You seem to be planning to revert forever, and we don't allow that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Where "not talking"?! I have replied to any messages within half an hour. My plan is correct article. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Article talk page. You should have been discussing there first, rather than edit warring all day. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Breton, about that other issue, how about we move it to my page so there is no confusion? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Updated over there. Sorry for the mess. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Check back in regularly if you can, please; hopefully is can be resolved sooner rather than later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Bretonbanquet, you wrote "at talk page discussion (which the IP seems to have ignored)". Please show link where I ignored something. All my replies at the talk pages was made within 30+ minutes after initial post. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

At the time, you hadn't replied. Hardly matters, since that talk page discussion was several hours overdue. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

His first post was at the talk page was at 21:56 UTC, my replies at 22:18 UTC and 22:33 UTC. What's problems here? 46.200.32.235 (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

And I said what I said at 22:13, before you replied; how hard is that to understand? You didn't say anything new anyway, you just copied-and-pasted from the edit-warring admin board. You edit-warred all day and there's no excuse for it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Understand about 22:13 now. Yes, anything new, all logic arguments were shown before. And I cannot to do the edit war alone. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Attendance

Hey Breton,

Do you mind keeping an eye on 2014 Russian Grand Prix again? There's another issue brewing, and I'm too close to it and don't really know how to refer it to admins.

Yes, it's shaping up as an edit war, but it's different from the above. A user, Haken arizona, insists on adding the attendance figures for the race to the article. I have no problem with this; the problem is that there are issues with his sources. The first was written on the Saturday, but was being used to support the crowd figures for Sunday. I finally convinced him that this was a problem on the the article talk page, but his latest source only quotes "near capacity" as the attendance figure. To my mind, that's not good enough; after all, how near to capacity is "near capacity"? It's essentially a weasel word. I have repeatedly asked him to provide a source that is reliable, verifiable and specific, which he has chosen to ignore, and so if this went to ANI/3RR, I'm confident that I have handled it properly.

I am not trying to canvas for support here. Rather, given the way Haken arizona's latest suggestion is that I go to the Holocaust page and argue the finer points of the death toll, I think we're past the point where he will listen to me. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I basically agree with you, and I see the article has now been protected, so that gives you guys a chance to thrash it out on the talk page. I'll stick my oar in there when I get the chance. Haken Arizona has a tendency to be a bit OTT sometimes, but bear in mind that admins might see the history and just think "edit war", then see you've been blocked for it before, and jump to conclusions. Are we sure Haken Arizona isn't the IP you were dealing with last time? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Formula 1 / Formula A

I'm a bit worried by the categorical statement in 1949 Grand Prix season that "the formula was called Formula A, but would be renamed to Formula One in 1950". As I misunderstand it, the formula was defined in 1946 and both terms were used for a while - Formula One gradually becoming the most used. Motor Sport in June 1949 is certainly calling it Formula 1 - and the Formula 1 article is clear that Formula One races as such were held from 1947. What do you think? Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Scott Kashket

If you're happy then I'm happy - I've unprotected. GiantSnowman 18:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

F1 2015

I just can't do this anymore, man. I can't contribute, apparently. I don't even know how to contribute in this context. I'm losing my mind. Sorry. Eightball (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, I mean, I know we've had our differences in the past, but this has to be the most surreal discussion I've ever had on Misplaced Pages. Eight years I've been on here, and it's Friday night, and I'm debating with people who need a source to say that the German GP will be held in Germany. Pass that bottle over here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

But we've only had disagreements about things it's POSSIBLE to disagree about! Eightball (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That's true! The F1 wikiproject pushes new boundaries yet again...! Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I do want to apologize for our previous disagreements, though. I know for a fact I acted like a child in many (all?) of them. You're clearly one of the good guys here. Eightball (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries, we've probably all acted badly at times. We live and learn. There are a few good guys, for sure, but I appreciate the sentiment. Cheers! Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I finished the bottle. Sorry about that too. Eightball (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Not surprised though, under the circumstances ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Civility Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

I just wanted to say I wish more often, users I disagreed with acted like you did on the DRN page.