Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FlightTime (talk | contribs) at 17:28, 13 September 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Question about English football league editing

Sorry to disturb you, but could you tell me, if I can edit certain English football leagues more frequently so that you would have a little less to do and could concentrate on other things a little more? Catgamer (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have a question, how do you create these results grids, do you have a good template for that?Catgamer (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that if I copy and paste it, then I do not get the teams in the way you have written them in e.g. I have wriiten this, but it just doesn't show me the page like you have yours. How can you just write in the teams names without any link to the actual team name?Catgamer (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you know where my mistake is, how can I just get the table as yours, and the season table as well?

Sorry , but the main question for me is, how do you create the links to the teams when you just write

Template:Fb cl team like in the Combined Counties league? Thanks for your help and please do not be angry with my spamming on your talk page.(please look in the edit page of this then you will see what I mean)Catgamer (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I have created the 2012–13 Kent Football League now, so could you help me in correcting my mistakes I have done or help me to improve the page? Thanks for your help.Catgamer (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

But do you know how I can create these templates for the teams as well?Catgamer (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And if it is no problem for you could you create the templates for Level 10 Kent and for the 2012–13 Eastern Counties Football League as well or could you explain to me how I can create them alone? Thanks for your huge helpCatgamer (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

2012–13 Allocations

Hey, apologies for the late reply, I've been on holiday. Just my luck that the FA decided to release the allocations while I was away! I managed to sort out the tables via an IP connection though. Looks like Retford have been denied promotion as you suspected so it all checks out. King's Lynn have played everywhere, I think they're the only club that have played in the Southern, Isthmian and Northern Premier Leagues. Guess the allocations will be confirmed after the league AGMs in the next month or so. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeoman Credit Racing

Yes there certainly is. Yeoman Credit Racing is a disambiguation page so shows in Dabsolver. Reg Parnell Racing was Yeoman Credit Racing from 1960-63. British Racing Partnership were Yeoman in 1959-60.Edinburgh Wanderer 13:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats the way it currently is. I didn't create that as a dab page just clearing the links. I actually think it should be a dab page as British Racing Partnership does cover it and has a link to that page explaining the history so should Reg Parnell Racing. Im not bothered but its either a dab page or it isn't.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Its been a dab page since 2007.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be taken off as a dab page. Thats the fault of the other articles it clearly needs to be a dab due to two teams using the name. Things can link intentionally to it without it showing as a mistaken link by using Yeoman Credit Racing (disambiguation). These articles however i feel should link to the main teams pages, the only ones that i feel should link intentionally are the two teams themselves. If you want to disam then probably needs taken to talk page.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no specific interest other than if it is a disam page then really it should link away and only the parent articles need to link to it. If it changes from a disam page then that is fine as links will be gone. But i don't think we should change it without input given the length of time it has been that and never caused an issue. if others think it shouldn't be then i have no objection.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. When you recently edited Bill Aston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lingfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:YEAR

Hi. It's common to put full years in footballers infoboxes, as they show from what year they joined from until when they left. I can't even think of an example where it wouldn't. Rather than seasons, it's just so happens Bradley Gray has left after less than a year from each club. Therefore, I don't think WP:YEAR is really relevant in this case. Cheers, --Jimbo 20:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't those rules only apply to prose text? Otherwise, there'll have to be a major overhaul of every football article on Misplaced Pages. --Jimbo 21:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea why, I've noticed rugby and other sport articles use the WP:YEAR format though. I'll create a discussion over at WT:FOOTY to see if there's a reason why. --Jimbo 21:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Manfred Winkelhock

Hello. I apologize for the mistake I made with the disqualification of Manfred Winkelhock. I will check such stats before I edit again. Thanks for putting it right. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes

On Hideki Noda, you said the flag in infobox is not prohibited and restored it. Would you care to show me the policy covering this so I learn it for the next time? If so, it would contradict WP:INFOBOXFLAG which specifically says: "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes-- Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." As far as I know he is representing himself and his team, not his country as this is not the Olympics or FIFA World Cup for example. If this is allowed in race car driver articles, then we need to get consensus and amend the MOSFLAG policy, else the flag should be removed from his infobox -- Alexf 12:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A *gift*

Take a look on your article for Brian Robertson. The previous one was below par, so I requested --and received one for the infobox and one for the guitar section. Only problem I see is that his watermarks need removing and I don't know how. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we were fortunate with these. They come from the same photographer who provided the photo of Brian Downey-- that black and white one which Downey himself objected to for "making him look old". I suppose he was right, too, given the newer ones, but these two are good, unlike the other one for Robertson. Someone left a note back in recent archives of my talk page, who said he was part of a group that do that cleanup stuff with photos, but nothing ever came from it. Still, I like these, which are recent, and now would like to find one of him young which is proving difficult. Ah well, happy daze. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this the right guy?

Hey Bro, have you ever heard of a band called Trip Shakespeare? One of the musicians who played at the 25th anniversary "Vibe for Philo" (the same one last year from which Brian Robertson also played) is named Matt Wilson. The photographer changed the license for one of Wilson to upload using a Creative Commons one like that of Robbo, but I was thinking-- that's a common name, and to upload the photo, I want to be sure it's the same person. This is the one: Yes? I do not want to screw this up. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think uploading the wrong Matt Wilson is a bad idea, so I'll leave it alone. The photographer is a pro and is being kind. Don't want to take advantage of that, or the conceiveable dead weight into Commons. It has always been my practice to only upload photos we need. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure Rashid Rauf is dead?

His body hasn't been found. His family insists he's alive. As for proof he's alive, here you go.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/04/al_qaeda_operative_r_1.php

--Zhoban (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Email

You have email! Please do read it. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited 2012–13 Leyton Orient F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tranmere (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Eversley and California

Hey, thanks for pointing that one out, I've uploaded the cut-off version, it's the club's fault! Only one club all the way down to level 10 with no badge now... London Bari F.C., but seeing as they're a new club that hasn't even set up its own website yet, maybe in a few months that project on the Non-league task force can be wrapped up! Seen you've been going through all the Western League seasons, tiring stuff I know as I've been going through the Southern and Isthmian leagues. Now all the seasons have three league tables each so it's getting harder to tick that project off the list! Cheers Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, got through the early Isthmian seasons like a knife through butter as there was only 1 table of about 10 teams, now it's 3 tables of 22 O_O Yeah, the defunct teams will be near impossible to get the badges for (if they even had them!). I've also noticed some redlink teams on my way through the Isthmian and Southern leagues (West Norwood, New Crusaders, and Guildford & Dorking United a brief merger between Dorking and Guildford City. May just make that a disambig page. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hey Breton,

I'm hoping this is just me, but I'm beginning to suspect Eff Won might be a sockpuppet of Lucy-marie. Based on the conversation over at the 2012 season talk page, I'm seeing a lot in common with what Lucy-marie used to do: quibbling over minor points, driving the conversation in circles and ignoring the points other users make, only to restate her request to have things explained to her. It's very, very similar to what she did back in April as Jimjames1989 with the status of the bold P in results tables, and while we have since removed the bold P after qualifying, justlook at the way the conversation goes around in circles, with Lucy dragging things out and qubbling when she isn't getting her way. I suspect that she may be back as Eff Won and is trying to get the calendar changed.

I thought I'd run this past you since you've encountered her before, rather than going straight to sockpuppet invetigations. Please tell me I'm just being paranoid. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the 2012 season page. I've encountered Lucy in the past, and when she doesn't get her way, she gets disruptive. The next step is to go into the page and make the changes that she thinks are necessary and will try to force them through by way of edit warring.

I've just managed to provoke a response from Eff Won when I chanllenged him/her on why he/she keeps forcing the conversation around in circles. I got a response that basically amounts to "if you don't acknowledge that my ideas are good, then you clearly don't know what you're talking about" which sounds a lot like Lucy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And Eff Won is now sitting on the talk page and calling our arguments against his/her inclusions "excuses ". The old Moscow Rules spring to mind - once is an accident and twice is a coincidence, but three times is a pattern. Eff Won is definately displaying Lucy-ish behaviours now. I'm very curious as to what his/her response to your latest comment will be. I'm guessing it will be either a parthian shot before he/she hits the article proper, or something designed to marginalise your comments.

I also noticed that Eff Won is talking about "giving the reader all the facts" over at the discussion on where or not to add a ban cell to the results key template. Is it just me, or is carrying the argument into a new talk page another symptom of acute Lucyism? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we may have just seen the opening salvo: this edit, which removes all of the "Report" entries in the 2012 results section because they redirect back to the 2012 season page. I seem to recall that Lucy liked to quote Misplaced Pages policy out-of context to justify her disruptive edits and try to force her edits through. Eff Won has also done this twice, merging the quote boxes in the race summaries subsection into the text of the subsection, and then claiming that it needs to go to consensus on the talk page - although this is more-consistent with de Facto, who liked to make changes that were disruptive and then insist that consensus was needed to revert them back (but I always did suspect that de Facto was another Lucy account).

I think we've seen enough from Eff Won to consider taking this to an authority. I believe that Eff Won's last few edits are a taste of things to come, which means lots of disruptions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Eff Won is definitely somebody. Hot money is on Lucy, but I haven't ruled out De Facto either. De Facto seems to have disappeared, and I don't believe someone like that would just walk away from Misplaced Pages. I'm going to ask Pyrope what he thinks, maybe he has an idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my barging in like this, but I'm also fairly sure Me1256, HRT F1 Team and Daniels Renault Sport are the same person. Same bizarre, random, edit summary-less editing that just switches things around a bit and makes 'em a little bit worse. — Jon C. 08:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, the more the merrier :) Funny you should say that, because Pyrope thought that Me12356 was User:Kevintjeerdsma1996. I'm not sure because Kevin edits these days (block-evading) as Jahn1234567890. HRT F1 Team is at least blocked, but I'm sure he's come back as something else, quite possibly Daniels Renault Sport - HRT was blocked on 26 August, and DRS appeared on 27 August. Me12356 is a Renault obsessive though, so they could indeed be the same person. I think there's a lot of sockpuppetry among editors of F1 articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I was going to ask Prisonermonkeys after seeing him deal with Eff Won, but it seems the parties here ;) I do believe Eff Won is DeFacto reappearing again, the discussion style on Talk:2012 Formula One season is identical to what he was doing on the Wikiproject talk page - his very brusque manner, the refusal to accept defeat and starting a new section on the same topic whenever the discussion got too against the proposal. The fact that Eff Won appears to know about about the guidelines only adds suspicion for a new user. Definitely worth following up.

And yes I also thought Daniels Renault Sport was another sock, I just couldn't place it. Me12356 fits perfectly - although that account is no longer blocked. We've got a serious problem with a few people here. QueenCake (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is either Lucy or De Facto - no doubt about that. Instantly appearing armed with knowledge of policies and guidelines, heading straight for an F1 article and trying to push his/her weight around... it's just a matter of figuring out which of them this is and getting them blocked. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if BenjF1 is actually De Facto - talk about flogging a dead horse. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet we actually got an edit conflict trying to say the same thing there! BenjF1 is almost certainly a sock, that was DeFacto's pet topic alright. QueenCake (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Eff Won's latest comment seals it for me as Lucy, that's a done deal. I'm sure that Benj is a sock, and that makes two of us with the same De Facto hunch... Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm even coming round to Prisonermonkeys view that DeFacto and Lucy are the same person, but given how established both accounts were before they were banned, that suggests they've been involved in some serious sockpupperty. I've never been involved reporting it though, how do we get some attention to this? QueenCake (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure De Facto and Lucy are the same person, though it's possible. De Facto didn't usually lose his cool, whereas Lucy got riled up and made mistakes. I'll make the SPI report for Eff Won once I'm done with the football results ;) It's a bit of a drag to do, but it's worth it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, a good point there. Their styles are certainly similar though. Cheers in advance for making the report, before Lucy I've only seen it before in vandal fighting where an admin did the work before a ban ;) QueenCake (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's here - Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucy-marie - please have your say there to add another voice to the claim. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've left my comments there. It seems there's quite the backlog dealing with Socks however :/. Thanks for starting it. QueenCake (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've never seen a backlog that long - might take a little while. Oh joy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

De Facto didn't usually lose his cool, whereas Lucy got riled up and made mistakes.

In that case, I suggest you head over to the Lotus E20 talk page, where de Facto really made a pain of himself, and displayed some very Lucy-like behaviours. I first ran into Lucy in 2010, when she was trying to get the just-created 2012 season page banned. At the time, most of the article's notability revolved around the presence of the newly-signed USGP contract for a race in Austin. Lucy insisted that despite the contract and despite dozens of people involved confirming that the race would go ahead, there was a chance that the race would not go ahead at all, and therefore all mentions of the USGP should be removed from the article. When I asked her about it, she said that she had higher standards than Misplaced Pages when it came to adding content based on future events. I'd like to see her face on November 16, when the cars first take to the Circuit of the Americas.

The problems with de Facto on the Lotus E20 started when the name of the chassis was announced. De Facto insisted that the page needed to have a paragraph detailing why it was called the E20 (compared to pages like the Ferrari F150 Italia, which only had a sentence explaining its name), even though most of his edits only repeated what had already been said. He also edited the section on the reactive ride height system because he insisted that we had no way of proving the system existed in the first place, much less that it had been developed by Lotus, put on the E20, or that the FIA had told them to take it off. He was clearly trying to write the page to imply that Lotus had simply had a brilliant idea that had been rejected because of someone else's actions, and his style of writing was almost exclusively written in weasel words. When he didn't get his way, he started edit-warring, deliberately running the discussion off-topic and restating the topic to try and gain a new consensus, quoting Misplaced Pages policies out of context to justify his edits, and accusing me of intentionally obscuring "the facts". He displayed several behaviours common with Lucy, and while he did a few new things (like reaching beyond the Formula 1 pages) and didn't show some of Lucy's behaviours (he never called my counter-arguments "excuses"), it was enough to convince me that Lucy and de Facto were one and the same. But then de Facto got banned, so there was no need to do anything more about it. I'd put it out of my mind until Eff Won emerged, and started displaying behaviours symptomatic of both Lucy and de Facto. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You make some good points there, maybe I should have said "De Facto didn't usually lose his cool with me" haha... It could well be that there's some kind of relationship between Lucy and De Facto, but I think one of Lucy's socks and De Facto were operating at the same time, which might put a question mark over the idea. Even so, it shouldn't matter to SPI which sockpuppet is operating Eff Won - admins should just be concerned that there's sockpuppetry going on, which is surely obvious to anyone, and put the block in place. I wonder if other fields on Misplaced Pages attract so many obsessives and circus freaks as F1 does. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if Eff Won is by some chance neither Lucy nor De Facto, he behaviour alone has been enough to justify a ban. See his reaction to The359 imploring him to think before he acts, and this contribution as evidence. If this is Lucy, I think we may even have a case to take to long-term abuse. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If I had one, I'd stake my house on Eff Won being one of the two. I'm starting to think it's probably De Facto now - this guy shares an incredible egocentricity with De Facto, the like of which is rare enough to make me think it's the same person. Even so, it's likely enough to be Lucy to get him blocked as a sock of Lucy, even if he's actually not. The evidence is still pretty strong. Plus as you say, in the unlikely event he doesn't get blocked as a sock, he'll get blocked anyway for all the same reasons De Facto was blocked. I agree with you about WP:LONG too. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we should wait until the outcome of the SPI before doing anything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, here is a draft of a write-up for an entry over at long-term abuse. This is mostly based on what I have seen and experienced first-hand with Lucy. Feel free to edit accordingly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't all that familiar with WP:LONG, but I see that it's a pretty helpful resource. What you've done so far is pretty much on the button, as far as I can see. Once this SPI is sorted out, and assuming it's found to be Lucy, then I think this is a good idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How long do SPIs generally take to finish? I'd like to see the back of Eff Won and his/her crap. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Table edits

All the matches finished at 21:39 so was shamefully 1 minute late - couldn't care less if i update it first as long as someone does it which is not always the case. Arthur7171 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Jerome d'Ambrosio

His participation isn't a fact. Before the weekend many things can happen, for example an illnes o injury.

Yeah, and we might all be wiped out by aliens. D'Ambrosio is confirmed by Lotus, and that's all that we need to care about. Whether he's in the drivers table or not is more or less irrelevant right at this very moment anyway. And sign your comments, Phósphoros, it's the only way to enlightenment. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Malarious

Thanks for the heads up - his behaviour has troubled me for some time and that edit was the last straw - blocked for a week. GiantSnowman 13:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't have high hopes to be honest, this is block #3, and the last one was only back in May... GiantSnowman 13:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Flags and Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

Could you give your opinion here? 70.253.91.210 (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Behind the Music

Howdy Brah-- did you know that Thin Lizzy is mentioned in that Misplaced Pages music documentry article called Behind the Music? I only gave it a seconddidn't look too close, but maybe there's info with a reference for the Thin Lizzy article. Just an FYI. :) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers for the help with the editwarring IP. Looks like they earned themselves a week ban! They seem to really hate attendance figures for some reason... Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(Everything I Do) Is Reverted by You

No, I'm not going to sing a reworded version of the Bryan Adams classic to you, I wouldn't subject you to that ordeal, I just wanted to ask you for a bit of space here.

I feel that every move I make is being observed and then summarily reverted on sight. I am still finding my feet, I've read through heaps of guidelines and policies so know, in broad terms at least, what's allowed and what isn't. I'm making small changes which do not remove anything and generally add a little something (in my opinion, at least). You don't need to be suspicious of my motives, I'm not going to vandalise anything, or even make any drastic changes. At least discuss rather than revert, in the first instance, and let us see if we can agree an amicable compromise, rather than playing this silly game. I'm sure you don't realise how demoralising it is, and I'm sure that you don't have any underhand motives either, but it almost feels like you are trying to break my spirit, or are hoping to provoke me to overreact for some reason. I'm sure you don't think all the F1 articles are perfect, and all I want to do is make a difference, even if its only a tiny one in the grand scheme. Please trust me with these articles, for a few days at least. There is always the 'undo' button if, after giving me a fair chance, I make a right mess. Eff Won (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It really doesn't work like that. You asked a bunch of questions on the Project page about changes you want to make, and that's the best way to do it. Your changes to the lead sentence were not small changes. Any change to the lead sentence of an article is a fundamental change. Not only that, all race articles start in the same way, and a change to one is potentially a change to hundreds. We're not going to change that convention at the drop of a hat when there is so much other work to do. I'm not playing a game of any sort, this is how Misplaced Pages works. If you were to look at how I edit, you'll see that I (and most other experienced editors) work in this way all the time. In fact, many edits get reverted a lot more harshly than I've reverted yours. I have rollback, for example, which is a very perfunctory way of reverting while implying, "Your edit was shit", and I haven't used it on you. You must shake off this idea that people are out to get you, and perhaps realise that someone coming in and making trivial changes which don't improve the articles, or breaking long-established conventions, is actually pretty irritating. It is especially so when we have to spend the next few days having to justify what we're doing and have to deal with accusations of bad faith etc. This is why your edits are watched so carefully - you made such a unique fuss when you were reverted, that now everyone has you marked down for attention. No, the articles aren't perfect, but you need to work in areas where problems actually exist rather than trying to make unnecessary changes to sections which are fine as they are. You might also consider 'adding something, rather than just changing something. Giving you time and space to work on articles isn't going to work, because it would require all other editors to give you that time, and that cannot be done. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your candid response. It seems a little too regimented and too inflexible to have them all starting in exactly the same way, and means, as you say, that you can't improve any of them without having to change all of them. A bit of a limitation really, ah well. They could do with links to their parent GP articles though, and without it being in the bold bit (also in that doc you referred me to, at WP:CONTEXTLINK). At least you didn't use your "Your edit was shit" tool, I should feel flattered I suppose ;-) Are you going to comment on my Talk:2012 Formula One season comments about the modest improvements I have suggested for the summary of the Italian GP in the 2012 season article? I would really appreciate a bit of moral support there, or at least a considered reason to drop the ideas. Eff Won (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's for simplicity's sake, mostly. Many people who read these articles don't know anything about F1, so it has to be simple for them. I think many editors would agree with me that the generic lead sentence needs no improvement as it fulfils its function very well, but if you want to test the waters at WT:F1, then that's your choice. I was aware of the guideline which discourages bold links, but I personally don't mind them. Regarding the season reports, they are not something I ever work on, because I don't think they should be there at all. We have race report articles to describe the races, and the report sections of the season articles are far too long, in my opinion. I wouldn't particularly object to the changes you want to make, but as a non-supporter of the sections as a whole, it's not really fair for me to stick my nose into their construction. It's for the people who write those things to yay or nay your ideas. Plus it might be better that I don't comment on everything you do, because that's not really a great idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Blackmane (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinion requested

Since I know that you edit the areas in question, I would like to point you to a open RfC that I think your opinion would be helpful I honestly do not think this is considered canvassing, I hope. Thanx Mlpearc (powwow) 17:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)