User talk:Mb2437

Welcome!

Hi Mb2437! I noticed your contributions to Logan Sargeant and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! SSSB (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karting European Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andreas Hansen. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Commission Internationale de Karting

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Commission Internationale de Karting, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Monaco Kart Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dennis Olsen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Nationality and notability.

Only nationality's the driver is notable for are listed in the lead as per MOS:Nationality. It simply being sourced is not enough.

I saw you reverted my changes. Verstappen is notable for being a Dutch driver. Norris for being British and Stroll for Canadian.

The talk page is irrelevant, because this isn't a discussion about content, it's about guidelines and notablity.

If information like this is trivia, then it's not notable. I will be reverting these back soon due to that.

The onus is on you or anyone else to show how these second nationalities have been notable to their F1 careers in order to go against the guidelines. Simply being born there or having a flag on their helmet or having a parent from there is not enough for notability. They need to have either raced for that country or have done some other work outside F1, such as becoming a politician there etc. Basetornado (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• No clear consensus has been reached.
• Norris and Stroll may be changeable, Verstappen's cannot. Verstappen's career spans his being a Belgian national, where he has been quoted regarding his Belgian nationality on par with his Dutch.
• See other sportsperson articles throughout English Wikipedia, where dual nationalities are consistently stated if notable enough. The MOS makes it clear of that. Your perception of the MOS skips the very first sentence, that clearly states that a "country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident" may be stated in the lead. As discussed, F1 is a tricky one as several drivers are very much multi-national (rich kids) but choose to race under certain flags. The phrase "competing under the x flag" covers this without glossing over their actual nationality.

Mb2437 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Again it is irrelevant if he's a dual national. It's only relevant what he is notable for.

The MOS says "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was such when they became notable."

"In most" is the important bit there.

Other dual nationalitys are listed if they played the sport for both. Verstappen hasn't. Basetornado (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It is incorrect to gloss over his Belgian nationality, much like it is incorrect to gloss over Alex Albon's British nationality because he's notable for being Thai. Mb2437 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Basetornado and Mb2437: It is inappropraite to actively discuss the same topic in more than 1 place (I count at least 3), as it could be interpreted as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. As an aside, nobody is suggesting we "gloss over" it. Just that it doesn't need to be mentioned in the opening paragraph of the lead. SSSB (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

BRD

Please go read WP:BRD. If someone has an issue with your edits, you discuss those issues. You do not simply revert their reversion; that way lies edit warring. Also, you appear to have reverted one of your own edits, that I simply reinstated after I removed your recitation of Prost's junior career. You left a very strange edit summary for that one. How is "1981-1983" less correct than "1981-83"? Pyrope 19:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sport seasons are generally listed as whole years when contested over a calendar year, see every other F1 page. It was also a matter of inconsistency between sections. Mb2437 (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. So why did you change it back to "1981-83"? Pyrope 20:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Did I? Apologies, I thought it was the other way around. Mb2437 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a good idea to have a think about what you are doing before you hit "Publish changes". That also goes for reverting a properly reasoned adjustment of your own work. Your edit had multiple issues, and you were not justified in simply reverting back to it. Pyrope 20:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I had a low-IQ moment, I read it as two separate reversions for whatever reason, apologies. As for the reversion itself, the quality of that lead is a literary atrocity that needs rectifying, with unnecessary details in the wrong areas. A wider edit of the lead is being worked on currently, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. Junior championships are far more notable than details such as the whole paragraph about his driving style and "personal heroes", and the opening paragraph's details about Schumacher breaking his win record were unnecessary. Mb2437 (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jochen Rindt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Endurance racing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You really should know better at this point and really need to accept that not everyone on this site has to agree with you no matter how right you may think you are. TylerBurden (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Your protectionism at Kimi Räikkönen has been clear from previous discussions dating back to 2022, including an edit-war warning for repeatedly removing the justified excessive detail tag. My edits (including updated iterations to reach an amicable solution per discussions) served to address this issue that you have refused to let be fixed. Get over yourself fella. Mb2437 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So now we're adding WP:PA's to the growing list of behavioural issues. TylerBurden (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Your note at the end was a WP:PA offense. Mb2437 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Not remotely, it seems you are simply unable to accept that people think some of your edits are not improvements, which is a belief expressed by multiple people including myself. You made a post on a Wikiproject and am now insisting every Formula One driver article meets your preferred standards, citing said post on Wikiproject, edit warring and now personally attacking the people that do not agree with this standard.

But by all means, report my "offense", it would lead to a much needed examination by administrators into your own behaviour. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. TylerBurden (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, it is a collaborative project: collaborate with me on improving the article, it has an excessive detail warning that is justified from the very first sentence. Your refusal to accept a middle-ground doesn't help this article in achieving GA/FA status. Mb2437 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, in your recent edit to Keke Rosberg, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Apparently you need to be formally told about this, you keep adding ″see also″ sections just to add a link that is already present. TylerBurden (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no rule against doing this, it simply reaffirms a wikilink that may be lost in the text to the reader. All relevant lists and the like are typically placed there; might I also add that it was your suggestion to add it to see also. If preference has to be chosen, then the infobox is definitely a better place for it, but adding extra sections shouldn't be a major concern when they're not in the main body of the article. Mb2437 (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I never suggested you spam the link multiple times in the article, I suggested that if you can't fit it in naturally then such a section can be used.. it's "see also" MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN. It goes against common sense adding an entire section just to repeat links that are already included on the article. TylerBurden (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to go through and rectify it then. Mb2437 (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to come to my talk page every time you have an issue with an edit I make, leave whatever notes you may have in your respective edit summaries and we can discuss further if there's disagreement. It's petulant and doesn't help us reach a solution. Mb2437 (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I did, multiple times, and you kept doing the same thing, hence the "apparently you need to be formally told about this".

If you're going to edit live articles you should expect feedback like anyone else when you make questionable edits, if you can't handle that perhaps you should stick to your sandbox. TylerBurden (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

"Multiple times"... you did so once at Gunnar Nilsson. It's not that deep at the end of the day; it's a minute detail that doesn't require you lose your marbles because you hold contempt for me and my editing style. You could have simply added this as a note to the discussion at the WP and left it at that. Mb2437 (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Nope, did it on every impacted article on my watchlist, which was more than the Nilsson article. You evidently either weren't looking or simply ignoring the point.

What are you even on about? Losing marbles? It seems you have no concept of WP:CIVIL, and as I mentioned above take any criticism as a personal attack, that is not compatible with editing on collaborative project. So if you're going to keep the attitude up, I have no problem taking the issue to WP:AN/I. TylerBurden (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I did look through every article I'd edited to double check that point before I made it. The see also sections haven't been removed on earlier edits (probably about 20 of them), but haven't been added recently. Mb2437 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chris Amon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyrrell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Andrea Margutti Trophy moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Andrea Margutti Trophy. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Michele Alboreto 1985.webp

A tag has been placed on File:Michele Alboreto 1985.webp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Williams links

Hi Mb2437. I was wondering why you are changing links to "Williams Grand Prix Engineering" to "Williams Racing", as you did in this edit. The article is located at Williams Grand Prix Engineering, so you're actually introducing an unnecessary redirect. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah apologies, I was under the impression it was at Williams Racing for whatever reason. A move is probably warranted there to be fair per WP:COMMONNAME. Mb2437 (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Placename links in infoboxes

Hi, not sure why you're piping the names of counties and states within links to towns and villages? Nothing in the MOS suggests to do that unless I'm mistaken. In the MOS: "For a geographical location expressed as a sequence of two or more territorial units, link only the first unit." It uses the example: (Quothquan, South Lanarkshire, Scotland). So in George Russell's case, it's King's Lynn, Norfolk, not King's Lynn, Norfolk. You were actually linking to a redirect with no reason. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I was under the impression you could pipe state/county names. Nothing wrong with using a redirect per WP:NOTBROKEN, but will try to keep within that example for consistency. Only one I partially reverted was Jochen Mass, who was specifically born in Allied-occupied Germany, long before the modern state was established. As it was a state that existed de jure, it should be stated as such. Mb2437 (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Yes, linking to redirects is alright within reason, but we shouldn't be creating them as a matter of course. The Mass example, though, I disagree with. It was just referred to at the time as Germany, as I understand it, and that was the name of the country. The article you link to is a description of the political situation there at the time, rather than the actual name of the country, and I'm not sure the infobox is the place to talk about political governance at the time of the subject's birth. It could be mentioned and linked to in the article body though, possibly, maybe with a link to American occupation zone in Germany, which is technically more accurate and descriptive. If there's any MoS guidance on it, I haven't found it, but maybe we could ask someone if you want. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Max Verstappen

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Max Verstappen, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Snetterton Circuit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Justin Wilson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Hello. In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Driver development program was originally written in American English and covers NASCAR as well as F1; it should not have been moved and I will be going to WP:RM/TR to correct this. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the pain, I didn't realise the wider importance. Mb2437 (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Andrea Kimi Antonelli 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Mb2437 (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The user's edits are not vandalism. I wouldn't test that if I were you. I assure you I won't hesitate to block you if you revert again.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The SPA's edits plastered the article with editorial conjecture that the subject's career was "failing" in almost every section, including the lead. The majority of the edits were malicious examples of original research with no regard to maintaining an NPOV or verifiability, to me that goes against WP:VANDAL; I can see why one would regard it as falling under a lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, but it could appear to one as though these edits were intended to disparage the subject. I opened a discussion with the user before WP:3RR, whose reply was to accuse me of being "a biased fan". Should I give new users a wider berth when it comes to such matters? Mb2437 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A note on common knowledge

Everyone in Formula 1 communities knows who Sergio Perez and Carlos Sainz are, but most other people probably do not. Full names should almost always be given anyways when they aren't the main subject of the article- I understand how this can be easy to forget (I've made similar mistakes). Sandcat555 (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It was not my mistake, these articles were not linked before so I assumed they had been previously mentioned, condensing them to surnames. Apologies for not checking this. Mb2437 (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

All good! no worries Sandcat555 (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)