This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Please approval to Thiyyar cast wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandanavijayan ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Ezhava and Thiyya cast is separate castes Nandanavijayan ( talk) 07:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi SSB,
Ezhava is a progressive community in Kerala, who organized under spiritual leader Narayana Guru.
Present-day Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan , opposition kpcc president Mullappally Ramachandran and Indian ruling party bjp president K. Surendran and even Indian foreign minister V. Muraleedharan all are from Ezhava community in Kerala. These are just some examples.
The pic you added in the Ezhava page is a defaming pic, maybe some IP vandal pushed you to add the pic.
Instead, you can add this Ezhava/Thiyya girl pic : A Pretty Thiyyar Girl ,19th century British Photograph
The other one you added is defaming the whole community.
As the position of a woman shows the community progress and history it would be best to add this historical British photograph.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.78.249 ( talk) 13:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The description and title of this image is academically incorrect/imprecise. The caption in the image itself says "Tiyans". They are a sub-group of Ezhava (although Thiyyans claim they are separate). Could you please correct it to Thiyya / Thiyyan / Thiyyar? 157.44.175.1 ( talk) 12:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! | |
Hello SSSB, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Why the assumption that I haven't read it already? It should have been fairly obvious that my edit falls under "Formatting that does not change the meaning of the page" and therefore was indeed minor. Simply adding "Sir" in any capacity surely shouldn't be worth using an anti-vandal tool and trying to reprimand me over? I will address the revert on the talk page in due time, just remember that Hamilton is the first active driver to be knighted, so I believe it'll be worth discussing new precedents. :] GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 11:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Adding content...into an article, so it wasn't a minor edit (it wasn't formatting).
Hello. I understand but "Previous name" is missleading. Eurohunter ( talk) 13:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Hey man, there was nothing wrong with the Picture of George Russell that I uploaded to the wiki and I dont like the fact that you had it deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImNotHamza ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
SSSB, no sooner had I put that cn tag on the page, and found the same source you put in, I realised there could be a source in the body text, and there was!
Edit conflict when I reverted myself & tried to do some other edits. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Regards,
220
of
ßorg
14:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This was the description of your revert of my F2 2019 season edit. My primary language is not English so I did not understand.-- Joél be back ( talk) 14:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
not ... leadworthy. I hope this is a helpful explanation of my edit summary?
Hi I’ve created a Wikipedia page for Williams Racing, Team Principle Simon Roberts. Is it ok if you quickly check it out. Sorry for any inconveniences. Ralphster7 ( talk) 18:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for proposal.That's what I'm doing right now Gudi129 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 23 January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
|
|
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (January 2021).
Hello everyone and welcome to the 20th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
Scripts Submit your new/improved script here
|
wgPageName
without first assigning it a value or using mw.config.get('wgPageName')
instead) are deprecated. If your user scripts make use of the globals, please update them to use mw.config
instead. Some
global interface editors or local
interface administrators may edit your user script to make these changes if you don't. See
phab:T72470 for more.As always, if anyone else would like to contribute, including nominating a featured script, help is appreciated. Stay safe, and happy new year! -- DannyS712 ( talk) 01:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Valentine Greets!!! | |
Hello SSSB,
love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of
Wikipedia, spread the
WikiLove by wishing each other
Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
I made a recent edit to the Max Verstappen wiki page adding information about his personal relationships citing information acquired from the source of his own instagram account. Other F1 drivers wiki's contain personal relationship in their wiki's so why was the edit I made not accepted given it did come from the verified source of his own instagram . Despite all this you declared it as Verstappen is a public figure and therefore his relationship information is I believe in the public interest. How can this not be noteworthy?-- Brozovera ( talk) 19:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits! I could recognize the bias but didn't know enough about the subject to improve the text. The article is definitely better now. Cheers! -- Baumi ( talk) 17:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Interface administrator changes
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at
Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
Earlier in December you reverted my edit that added Category:Formula One controversies to Mazepin's page since it isn't F1 related. Would Category:Auto racing controversies suit better then? FMecha ( to talk| to see log) 15:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
hi ssb, thanks that you understood the thing and added the pic. the caption you added is 'A Thiyya man in British service'. but the original image caption is : Young Thiyyar gentleman in British service holding title of Amsham Adhikari,Rao Bahadur and Menon in south Malabar, late 18th century
This is important to history, as being untouchables and in low strata in hindu caste system thiyyar holded very high positions in British service, which can be cited as one prime reason for the social upliftment of this community.
kindly add the original caption of the image as such Young Thiyyar gentleman in British service holding title of Amsham Adhikari,Rao Bahadur and Menon in south Malabar, late 18th century in ezhava article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.201.31 ( talk) 10:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ezhava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menon.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I added a "citation needed" tag to Lewis Hamilton's article and it's been reverted by you. Please can you tell me why it's been reverted because I think those paragraphs clearly needed citations. Thank you Robert Jamal …talk to me💬 17:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I added some pictures to the 2013 Singapore Grand Prix which I took in 2013, but you deleted most of them due to "excessive images". Can you explain why? I thought images would be good for articles. How many images are too many? Anywhere where I can read a Wiki policy for images? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Goetzinger ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.Why is the name "List of Formula One chassis constructors" not uncontroversial? Constructors are clearly comprised of chassis and engine, therefore "List of Formula One constructors" does not unambiguously define the topic of the article. Carfan568 ( talk) 15:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
"SSSB moved page São Paulo Grand Prix to Brazilian Grand Prix over redirect: Rvt undiscussed move which contradicts WP:COMMONNAME"
then you modified lead: "The São Paulo Grand Prix, previously known as the Brazilian Grand Prix"
Something is wrong here. If GP is "known as" "São Paulo Grand Prix" then what is the point of reverting name change? Eurohunter ( talk) 08:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
It can be delected. We already have the right page 2021 Portuguese Grand Prix.-- Island92 ( talk) 13:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for your contributions last week. If you want to add anything to this week's report, which already has some of your old comments as placeholders, feel free to do so. igordebraga ≠ 20:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
On 6 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after their roughly 320 km/h (200 mph) crash at the 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, George Russell slapped Valtteri Bottas on his crash helmet while Bottas showed Russell his middle finger? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Interface administrator changes
oversight
will be renamed to suppress
. This is for
technical reasons. You can comment at
T112147 if you have objections.An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Spanish Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Your edit summary was so long that it breached the 500-character limit. Please provide the full wording so that I understand what you are complaining about. 95.148.229.85 ( talk) 16:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi SSSB. I notice that {{ F1R2021}} is not being used in {{ F1 Drivers Standings}} (but it is being used in {{ F1 Constructors Standings}}); do you know if there is a reason for this? Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Shwartzman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prema.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I've been a little fearful of editing the F1stats template because of its use on many highly visited pages. The edits I noticed today at Lando's page spurred me to give it a try and help out.
Also on a more light-hearted note, I just realized I think it was your user page that I sort of copied to my own a while back. I just wanted something, anything really, to put on my page. An infobox seemed appropriate and I guess I just happened to be on a page connected with you somehow. I didn't really choose yours for any particular reason other than that:) -- DB1729 ( talk) 16:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The first Brazilian Grand Prix to be counted in the world championship was in 1973. Read the article about the 1973 race, please. MCRainbowSupernova8196 ( talk) 22:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The race was the twentieth and penultimate round of the 2019 Formula One World Championship and marked the 48th running of the Brazilian Grand Prix and the 47th time that the race has been run as a World Championship event since the inaugural event in 1973.makes it sound like the first Brazilian Grand Prix was 1973, but it was 1972. ( 1972 Brazilian Grand Prix)
There's not much information on those races so who knows? They could've been called the Brazilian Grand Prix. Also what about the American Grand Prize? It's not called the United States Grand Prix but it's considered the United States Grand Prix. MCRainbowSupernova8196 ( talk) 22:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Also the Red Bull Ring, where the Austrian Grand Prix is held, is in Styria MCRainbowSupernova8196 ( talk) 20:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past four months (February through May 2021).
Hello everyone and welcome to the 21st issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
Scripts Submit your new/improved script here
|
My apologies for this long-overdue issue, and if I missed any scripts.
Hopefully going forward we can go back to monthly releases - any help would be appreciated. Thanks, --
DannyS712 (
talk)
13:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
https://gpracingstats.com/drivers/rubens-barrichello/wins— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCRainbowSupernova8196 ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Please post my comment of 13:57 (which you removed at 14:17) to the place you think it should go. This allows others to chime in. Alternatively, respond here (I'll be watching both pages). If you don't respond that will indicate you're dropping your claim that the Daily Beast analysis is unsourced. 31.124.153.250 ( talk) 14:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
References
The results from Wikipedia are taken from F1 directly and the stats are correct. 2012 United States GP was the last time Mercedes finished both cars without points. I don't know why you keep deleting this as this is correct. Consider it an original research or something. You can see from all results that it is correct; changing this is not necessary. Formula 1 itself and other sources like Racing-Statistics.com put this as the last finish without points.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14ba:a301:296d::1 ( talk) 13:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Your latest edit summary is somewhat disingenuous. The points you made were rebutted in the edit of 11:01, 19 June 2021 and you have not issued a rejoinder. 31.124.153.250 ( talk) 10:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Re your message on my talk page, numerous sources have been provided for the added content. Which part of the content do you claim is unsourced? 31.124.153.250 ( talk) 10:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
A link for you; Sealioning. It's up to you how you want to spend your own time, of course. But as long as you continue to entertain this editor, they will continue to engage you in endless discussion about Wikipedia policy that is not going to change just because they wish to redefine what Original Research means. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Welby has now stood himself down till at least September, after the Sun obtained a copy of Harry and Meghan's official marriage certificate, signed by him, which claims that they were married on May 19, with Harry's father and Meghan's mother as witnesses, so he is unlikely to be making any further comment) breaks several of Wikipedia's policies.
Read
WP:SYNTH, make sure it complies with
WP:SYNTH, then I will be happy to take a look. What I am not going to do is continue to argue with you about what the original research policy means, when
WP:OR has already made it abundantly clear. I have also pointed out which parts are the issue before now.
SSSB ( talk) 18:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
unless you can provide a coherent argument setting out why you think that you are wasting your time.- I have explained to you multiple times that your contributions make conclusions that your sources do not. Therefore, they are WP:SYNTHESIS of those sources.
you cannot use the statement to claim as fact that they lied.- we don't. Oprah with Meghan and Harry#Private exchange of vows doesn't call them liars. The section does not imply they lied. A lie is widely interpreted as being untruthful with the intent to decieve. Oprah with Meghan and Harry#Private exchange of vows does not state that they were tring to decieve anyone, so it does not imply they lied. As far as I am aware, non of the sources suggest they intended to decieve, so none of them imply they lied. So I'm not sure what the "very dangerous ground" is.
Also, some sources allege that the friends also said that "they were married on the Saturday". That is not a statement that they did not get married on the Wednesday.That kind of analysis is for secondary sources to make, not you.
private marriage of a member of the royal family before an Anglican clergyman is valid and they are not required to repeat the ceremony in faciae ecclesiaedoesn't mean that their private marriage before an Anglican clergyman was their legal marriage. Their later statement (as interpreted by sources) means that thier legal wedding was Saturday.
An acceptable paraphrase of "they were married on the Saturday" is "they were already married on the Saturday".I could equally argue that "they were married on the Saturday" is a re-phrasing of "their legal marriage was on the Saturday". So that argument is meaningless.
The analyses of the law professors are relevant background information.
- no, it is
WP:OR because you are the only person connecting the analysis to this marriage.
it is the couple's statement that they were married on the Wednesday that means that their private marriage before an Anglican clergyman was their legal marriage.
- as I explained:
Your problem is that after the sources with titles "Harry and Meghan admit they lied" or variations thereof which featured in the numbered reference list were removed you added them back.If sources do call them liars (I am not saying they do or don't), not only is it within Wikipedia's right, but also (arguablly) part of Wikipedia's duty, to report that they have been accused of lying (and any responses). There have been no claims that they lied, or any responses to claims of lying that I am aware of.
WP:NPOV requires that you do not feature the view of the internet bloggers without balancing it out with the view of Harry and Meghan.
- firstly we don't cite internet bloggers, we cite journalists. We do balance it out. You will note that we mention the interview statement, the refuting of the statement and then the spokesperson's statment. We have included (to the best of my knowledge) everything that Harry and Meghan have said on the subject. I am not aware of any reliable, secondry source (so not you) that argues they were legally married on the Wednesday. Therefore, Wikipedia has cited (to my knowledge) every defence of the Sussexes in reliable sources, including any defense they have made of themselves. Therefore,
WP:NPOV is being followed. If we have missed a reliable source (so not your edits on Wikipedia) defending them, please point it out.
SSSB (
talk)
09:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The day after the interview aired a spokeswoman emphasised to Town and Country magazine that the "secret marriage" was a "private exchange of vows".[ref] [5] As noted above, distinguished law professors say that the private marriage of a member of the royal family before an Anglican clergyman is valid and they are not required to repeat the ceremony in facie ecclesiae (this is a Latin phrase which means "in church").
One recent effect of this is that law professors argue that Camilla Parker Bowles and the Prince of Wales are not married (see argument in the cited article, Marriage Act 1949 cited above and Clandestine Marriages Act 1753). Harry and Meghan exchanged vows per verba de praesenti in front of the Archbishop on Wednesday (Camilla and Charles did not do this).[ref]
you finally admit that "they were married on the Saturday" cannot be used to support the claim that the legal wedding was on the Saturday.- irrelevant as Oprah with Meghan and Harry doesn't use that sentence to support anything.
Then you claim that I am the only person connecting the analysis to this marriage. Where, pray, do I say that the analysis (which was prepared fourteen years before this marriage) is connected to it? The criterion is not "connection" but relevance"
- connected/relevant, potayto/potahto. You want to quit the
WP:wikilawyering?
Your reason for suppressing the information that private royal weddings are legal can only be to make mischief.
- no, it is because it is your
WP:OR, as you are the only person making the argument.
This is why you are now in serious trouble. Harry is not thousands of miles away in another jurisdiction, he's right here in Windsor. Welcome. You're 21 years old and thus fully responsible for your actions.
- this is a threat. You can't bully me into accepting your edits. Take a look at
Wikipedia:No legal threats.
The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is obviously not "connected" to a murder in 2021 because it was passed 160 years before, but it is relevant because it may be mentioned in the indictment as authority for it.
- the key word here is "may". It "may" be relevant. As Harry and Meghan have clarified that they actually got married on Saturday, the fact that they could have gotten married on Wednesday means the marriage law is not relevant by default. If and when reliable sources mention it, feel free to add it.
You may like to ponder the proverb "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"
- I'm not in a hole, or digging.
Note that nobody is analysing Harry and Meghan's words - they are simply being reported. This is not "original research" or "synthesis", it's reporting as it should be - presenting the readers with all relevant facts to keep them informed.
- it's how journalists report, Wikipedia does not report in the same way. We report only what other sources explicitly say about the subject. No source has explicitly said Wednesday's exchange of vows could have been a legal wedding, so nor can we.
Since the statement was not universally refuted WP:NPOV requires you to give proportionate coverage to the views of those who accepted its truth.
- I only included the "not" because you refute. That's not good enough.
That's your analysis,
- it is. But as no source has been presented that defends it, or refutes the grounds for refution, Wikipedia cannot claim either of things occured.
you then put quotation marks around what follows, implying that those are the spokeswoman's actual words
- no, it implies that I quoted the cited source, which you admit I did.
You say "If we have missed a reliable source..." Are you speaking on behalf of someone else, perhaps as an undisclosed paid editor?
- I speak on behalf Wikipedia.
My patience with you has run out. I am fed up of repeating myself. Unless you present a new argument, you will be ignored.
SSSB (
talk)
19:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The fall guy that night was Southgate (pictured) who missed his attempt, causing his mother Barbara to ask: 'Why didn't you just belt the ball?'
In the traumatic aftermath of the defeat Southgate's mother Barbara famously revealed that she said to her son "Why didn't you just belt it?"
...the next time Priti Patel goes to a restaurant she is going to have to get the food herself because there won't be anyone to serve her.
Why did you include the word "merely" and claim the Wednesday ceremony was neither "legal" nor "official" if not to insinuate that Harry and Meghan are liars?
- that's not what "merely" insinuates. It only insinuates that a ceremony that is not legal or official is less significant that one that is official or legal or both. Here is a defintion of "merely" for you.
[7]
deliberate falsification of it.
- so you are just going to state that without proof?
Again, the headline "Meghan and Harry finally admit there was no secret backyard wedding", apart from being untrue, contains the implication that they are liars.
- true - missed that. But what I am supposed to do about it. The Mercury News are perfectly entitled to believe that they lied, and there is no evidence to say they didn't.
Even when reported speech is inside quotation marks there is no guarantee that the speaker has been accurately reported.
- true. But what I am supposed to about it. Unless you've got proof that it isn't what was said, we have no alternative but to assume that it is.
"The couple exchanged personal vows a few days before the official/legal wedding on May 19"
have the ring of authenticity about them. The bowlesderised version put out by the internet bloggers
"this private event did not constitute a "legal" or "official" service"
and variations thereof do not. - firstly, this is nothing more than your opinion, secondly, you keep refering to internet bloggers when there are none.
So the secondary sources' allegation that "they were married on the Saturday" means "they got married on the Saturday" is not used by the article to allege they got married on the Saturday (admission, your rebutter, §1). Thus the words that I see in the article
"Later in March, a spokesman for the couple confirmed that they merely exchanged "personal vows", and the private event was neither a "legal" nor "official" service"
must be a mirage. - that sentence you quoted does not say "they were married on the Saturday", it says they were not (legally or officially) married on the Wednesday (the private event) because it was neither official nor legal.
You go on to claim that I am the only person who stated "that private royal weddings are legal".
- let me clarify. You are the only person who claims that this private royal marriage is legal, or that the fact that private royal marriages are legal is relevant.
Point me to where they [clarified that they actually got married on Saturday],
-
[6]
explaining what you mean by "relevant by default".
- bad word choice by me. What I mean is: "the fact that they could have gotten married on Wednesday does not mean the marriage law is relevant by default." i.e. the marriage law is relevant just because two people get married. For example,
Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton doesn't mention any laws on marriage. The opening word "As" demonstrates this is analysis...
- no it doesn't. It's not.
I don't get the impression that you're a trained journalist.
- that's not relevant. I don't get the impression you are a trained journalist either.
You say "No source has explicitly said Wednesday's exchange of vows could have been a legal wedding". Harry and Meghan didn't say it "could have been" - they said it was
- no they didn't. They said they got married on Wednesday (without specifing if this was a legal marriage, a official marriage, both or neither), they later said (through a spokesperson) that they Wednesday ceremony was neither official nor legal. What you fail to understand is that those two sentences do not contradict. As is argued in the Mercury article,
[6] it is likely that Harry and Meghan meant that they considered the Wednesday ceremony to their marriage, but they acknowledge, through thier spokesperson that this was not the official or legal wedding, just a personal ceremony.
The solstitial version doesn't say "Wednesday's exchange of vows could have been a legal wedding" either.
- no it doesn't. That's my point, only you say that.
From your conjugation you appear to be American.
- how is this relevant?
Is that why you don't consider the words of our royal family to be "sources"?
- they are. But no royal has (explitly) said that the Wednesday ceremony was legal. And a spokespersons speaking on behalf of a royal has said the Wednesday ceremony wasn't a legal one.
asked you why, since not everyone refutes the statement that the Wednesday marriage was the legal one, you didn't mention the viewpoint that it was the legal marriage per WP:NPOV. You didn't answer...
- I did. I explained that I can't mention the viewpoint that it was the legal marriage because it is your
WP:OR. I cannot justify the inclusion of an argument if some random person is the only one making it.
You then claim "no source has been presented that defends it, or refutes the ground for refution". I see nothing in the solstitial version that "defends it, or refutes the ground for refution". What does "refutes the ground for refution" mean anyway? "Refution" isn't in the dictionary.
- let me clarify. There is not a single source that argues in support of the claim that the Sussexs were married (legally) on Wednesday, or that argues against sources that argue against the claim that they couldn't be married (legally) on Wednesday (this second point is what I mean by "refutes the ground for refution"
SSSB (
talk)
14:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
References
The only reason why I put down the Styrian flag down because it’s also the same as on the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_MotoGP_World_Championship# on there Calendar ConnorAmy ( talk) 11:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
This isn't you, of course; I thought MCRainbowSupernova8196's attitude at the Belgian Grand Prix article was unreasonable, and had clearly exceeded a sensible number of reversions, and didn't look like stopping. I'm sorry, I couldn't work out how to use the 3RR template at the 3RR page, so I just put it in the incidents page as I felt MCRainbowSupernova8196 probably needs some warning that unilaterally ignoring everyone and writing French isn't a good behaviour. I hope I haven't put my foot in it too badly. Since you're mentioned, I'm letting you know. Elemimele ( talk) 12:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
I record my opinion. In fact, in most books, Thiyya and Ezhava are recorded. [2] So why aren't historians writing about Ezhavas in an article like the one mentioned here? While celebrities, including Edgar (Caste and Tribes Of South India), have included the category of thiyyas in the "T" category, the Ezhavas appear to have been included in the "I" category. Famous historians have all included the two in the same way but recorded differently. There is a Wikipedia called Nair, but there is also a Wikipedia, Nambiar, a subcaste of Nair. So it seems necessary to have a Wikipedia to document the thiyya category, or try to include thiyya in the Ezhava page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.208.73.12 ( talk) 11:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear ssb,
Regarding your recent edits on Ezhava , why did you changed the original caption of the image ?
Also as far as I understood the user was talking in talk page to add more ezhava photos instead of thiyya photos, but you renamed all thiyya photos and made it as ezhava. Now another user added a good ezhava family photo. You can now keep the original caption of the image of thiyyas in the page you renamed.
Also in dispute between ezhava and thiyya, you should mention it as thiyya only and not ezhava. This issue hasbeen discussed in the page and added that section , when some objects for a new page for thiyya.
Also
In 2020 July, Kerala state government has issued an order to record Thiyya as Thiyya and not as a part of Ezhava nor its subcaste. In India, converting or writing one caste as another is a criminal offense.
Link to order kerala government's order from their official site :
https://education.kerala.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/govt.order_3072020.pdf
See the Kerala state government order and the followed news report given on right.
I hope Wikipedia also abides by the Indian Kerala government's official government order on the Thiyya caste.
You should keep thiyya photo as it is with original caption and not change it to ezhava, the user was asking to add more ezhava photos , which a good photos are added after wards.
Please keep the original caption of the photos you changed.
Thank yoou.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.197.167 ( talk) 08:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
As for the claim that Kerala now reconises the two as seperate castes, I can not read the language of those docuements. Nor was I able to find abything to that effect in English. However, if this is true, you are welcome to start a wider dicussion. However, because of the reasons I outlined above, I will not comply with your request to change the captions back.
With regards to your concerns with the dispute section of the article, I am not sure what you would like me to do, please construct an
WP:edit request in the form of "change 'x' to 'y'".
SSSB (
talk)
08:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This natrually raises the question about whether Thiyya and Ezhava should be considered differently by Wikipedia as well. But:
a) Wikipedia follows what sources say, if most sources still consider them the same, then so will we.
b) If Tamil Nadu is the only one that considers them seperate, then this is not sufficent grounds for Wikipedia to do so. If Kerala, the national international government and/or other authoritive bodies consider them seperate, then the fact that Tamil Nadu considers them seperate is of no consequence.
Wikipedia says people from Malabar are called as Thiyya and is having different caste organizations for them.So there is no point in changing the caption of images from thiyya to ezhava ,as page discuss both these castes.
- the page discusses what is considered to be one caste, with several different names. The only positive thing that having different captions achieves is to distinguish where these images were taken (Malabar, or not), the negative was raised on the talk page: that this unjustifable compares different parts of the community. To adress the different organistation arguement.
Catholics and
Church of England are different organistations, but they are all
Christians. So I am not sure what that arguement argues.
Also the source from these photos took mention caption as thiyya.
- Again, this is simply because different people use different names for this caste, Thiyya and Ezhava are considered to be synonomous.
Tommorw these well known historical paintings and photos will get published in news paper or any academic journel with the caption you changed from 'thiyya' to 'ezhava' , it will be a great damage to the photo and the historical background of the photo itself, lots of academic problems is going to happen.
- are you saying that newspapers use Wikipedia images and captions, or am I going to be in the paper. In either case, it doesn't change anything. Wikipedia considers Thiyya and Ezhava as synonmous, the fact that the images captions now reflect this doesn't damage anything as they are considered to be the same group. In any case, the image names are still the same.
I therefore still see the justifcation of using a consistent term for the caste in the article, and don't see the justification in changing it back.
SSSB (
talk)
11:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
As the matter is under par consideration with the ad hoc person, i may be delighted to aknowledge mine denoting note into your's kind attention..The aforesaid Caste/Community prevalent among the People of Kerala who may be known as 'thiyyas' are of distinctive caste identities which may explicitly distinct them from the 'Izhava' community, and theirs customs and tradition. Ninetyeightpointone ( talk) 12:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thiyya caste has been created in Malayalam Wikipedia for a long time. [3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.208.73.12 ( talk) 12:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
If synonimous , keep the original sub set name intact, what is the point of changing ?- to remain consistent within the article. By constantly switching between the names we imply that they are not synomous, we imply they are different, which contradicts consensus, reliable sources and the article lead.
Ezhava people from
Malabar region are called as Thiyya and southern kerala people are called as ezhava itself.That is what source is mentioning and wikipedia says the same.
- yes. But that doesn't mean we need to keep swithing between the terms.
So if you are using the image of thiyya (ezhava subset or ezhava people from malabar) , you should use as thiyya.
- That argument doesn't follow. If Thiyya and Ezhava are synomous (which you acklowedge they are) then what is the point of switching between the names? To identify where the photo was taken? Why is that relevant to the article?
If you use ezhava , world will think these people are from south kerala ezhzvas and not from british malabar thiyyas.
- says who? I don't. As I said above, the geographical location of these images is of little to no relevance.
Source says , thiyya people from malabar claimed higher position than rest, this had been argumented for a long and added that, why did you chaged that to ezhava of malabar? Why did you chaged the original source term ?
- I only wrote that in one instance, I wrote that because it was the first time that the article acknowleges that Thiyya and Ezhava are not universally considered as synomous.
ou are changing the 'thiyya' from 'ezhava' , which is a violation of the sources provided
- no its not. As the sources provided, and the article, establish that Thiyya and Ezhava are considered identical.
also of these are long disputed talk consensus product , you cannot replace thiyya with ezhava
- I saw no such consensus.
At least mention in the caption of photos you altered as 'Thiyya(Ezhava)' , which solves both side problems.
- no it doesn't.
SSSB (
talk)
12:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, SSSB. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review
Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially
the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow
post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using
Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to
secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status
can be revoked.
Useful links:
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac ( talk) 15:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
On 16 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 French Grand Prix, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the size of Le Castellet allowed the 2021 French Grand Prix to host more spectators than other events during the COVID-19 pandemic in France? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 French Grand Prix. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, 2021 French Grand Prix), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi SSSB. The official standings published at the end of the British Grand Prix does not include position achieved during the sprint qualifying. Why are we doing that here? Island92 ( talk) 19:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Just seen that you're an alumnus of the University of Leicester on your user page. I went there for a Medical Mooting competition back in 2019, in what I believe would've been the law school library. My co-counsel and I didn't get far, though. Ended up leaving early, and getting a Nando's.
Anyway, I just wanted to apologise if I came across as impolite to you the other day. I've been away from WP for a while, and in hindsight, I should've thought to discuss the issue at the talk page; I wrongly thought my edit summary alone explained the situation well enough. From what I can see, the material hasn't been reinstated, so until there's official confirmation it can stay that way, for sure. My main areas of focus have always been anti-vandalism and CSD, in all fairness, so substantially improving articles isn't really up my alley. I'll be taking a step back from the article in question, and the F1 WikiProject as a whole, and instead will be focusing on what I know I'm good at. Patient Zero talk 00:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Please approval to Thiyyar cast wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandanavijayan ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Ezhava and Thiyya cast is separate castes Nandanavijayan ( talk) 07:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi SSB,
Ezhava is a progressive community in Kerala, who organized under spiritual leader Narayana Guru.
Present-day Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan , opposition kpcc president Mullappally Ramachandran and Indian ruling party bjp president K. Surendran and even Indian foreign minister V. Muraleedharan all are from Ezhava community in Kerala. These are just some examples.
The pic you added in the Ezhava page is a defaming pic, maybe some IP vandal pushed you to add the pic.
Instead, you can add this Ezhava/Thiyya girl pic : A Pretty Thiyyar Girl ,19th century British Photograph
The other one you added is defaming the whole community.
As the position of a woman shows the community progress and history it would be best to add this historical British photograph.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.78.249 ( talk) 13:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
The description and title of this image is academically incorrect/imprecise. The caption in the image itself says "Tiyans". They are a sub-group of Ezhava (although Thiyyans claim they are separate). Could you please correct it to Thiyya / Thiyyan / Thiyyar? 157.44.175.1 ( talk) 12:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! | |
Hello SSSB, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Why the assumption that I haven't read it already? It should have been fairly obvious that my edit falls under "Formatting that does not change the meaning of the page" and therefore was indeed minor. Simply adding "Sir" in any capacity surely shouldn't be worth using an anti-vandal tool and trying to reprimand me over? I will address the revert on the talk page in due time, just remember that Hamilton is the first active driver to be knighted, so I believe it'll be worth discussing new precedents. :] GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 11:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Adding content...into an article, so it wasn't a minor edit (it wasn't formatting).
Hello. I understand but "Previous name" is missleading. Eurohunter ( talk) 13:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).
|
|
for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Hey man, there was nothing wrong with the Picture of George Russell that I uploaded to the wiki and I dont like the fact that you had it deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImNotHamza ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
SSSB, no sooner had I put that cn tag on the page, and found the same source you put in, I realised there could be a source in the body text, and there was!
Edit conflict when I reverted myself & tried to do some other edits. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Regards,
220
of
ßorg
14:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This was the description of your revert of my F2 2019 season edit. My primary language is not English so I did not understand.-- Joél be back ( talk) 14:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
not ... leadworthy. I hope this is a helpful explanation of my edit summary?
Hi I’ve created a Wikipedia page for Williams Racing, Team Principle Simon Roberts. Is it ok if you quickly check it out. Sorry for any inconveniences. Ralphster7 ( talk) 18:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for proposal.That's what I'm doing right now Gudi129 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 23 January 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).
|
|
post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (January 2021).
Hello everyone and welcome to the 20th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
Scripts Submit your new/improved script here
|
wgPageName
without first assigning it a value or using mw.config.get('wgPageName')
instead) are deprecated. If your user scripts make use of the globals, please update them to use mw.config
instead. Some
global interface editors or local
interface administrators may edit your user script to make these changes if you don't. See
phab:T72470 for more.As always, if anyone else would like to contribute, including nominating a featured script, help is appreciated. Stay safe, and happy new year! -- DannyS712 ( talk) 01:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Valentine Greets!!! | |
Hello SSSB,
love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of
Wikipedia, spread the
WikiLove by wishing each other
Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
I made a recent edit to the Max Verstappen wiki page adding information about his personal relationships citing information acquired from the source of his own instagram account. Other F1 drivers wiki's contain personal relationship in their wiki's so why was the edit I made not accepted given it did come from the verified source of his own instagram . Despite all this you declared it as Verstappen is a public figure and therefore his relationship information is I believe in the public interest. How can this not be noteworthy?-- Brozovera ( talk) 19:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits! I could recognize the bias but didn't know enough about the subject to improve the text. The article is definitely better now. Cheers! -- Baumi ( talk) 17:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
Interface administrator changes
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at
Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
Earlier in December you reverted my edit that added Category:Formula One controversies to Mazepin's page since it isn't F1 related. Would Category:Auto racing controversies suit better then? FMecha ( to talk| to see log) 15:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
hi ssb, thanks that you understood the thing and added the pic. the caption you added is 'A Thiyya man in British service'. but the original image caption is : Young Thiyyar gentleman in British service holding title of Amsham Adhikari,Rao Bahadur and Menon in south Malabar, late 18th century
This is important to history, as being untouchables and in low strata in hindu caste system thiyyar holded very high positions in British service, which can be cited as one prime reason for the social upliftment of this community.
kindly add the original caption of the image as such Young Thiyyar gentleman in British service holding title of Amsham Adhikari,Rao Bahadur and Menon in south Malabar, late 18th century in ezhava article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.201.31 ( talk) 10:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ezhava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menon.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I added a "citation needed" tag to Lewis Hamilton's article and it's been reverted by you. Please can you tell me why it's been reverted because I think those paragraphs clearly needed citations. Thank you Robert Jamal …talk to me💬 17:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I added some pictures to the 2013 Singapore Grand Prix which I took in 2013, but you deleted most of them due to "excessive images". Can you explain why? I thought images would be good for articles. How many images are too many? Anywhere where I can read a Wiki policy for images? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Goetzinger ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.Why is the name "List of Formula One chassis constructors" not uncontroversial? Constructors are clearly comprised of chassis and engine, therefore "List of Formula One constructors" does not unambiguously define the topic of the article. Carfan568 ( talk) 15:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
"SSSB moved page São Paulo Grand Prix to Brazilian Grand Prix over redirect: Rvt undiscussed move which contradicts WP:COMMONNAME"
then you modified lead: "The São Paulo Grand Prix, previously known as the Brazilian Grand Prix"
Something is wrong here. If GP is "known as" "São Paulo Grand Prix" then what is the point of reverting name change? Eurohunter ( talk) 08:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
It can be delected. We already have the right page 2021 Portuguese Grand Prix.-- Island92 ( talk) 13:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for your contributions last week. If you want to add anything to this week's report, which already has some of your old comments as placeholders, feel free to do so. igordebraga ≠ 20:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
On 6 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after their roughly 320 km/h (200 mph) crash at the 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix, George Russell slapped Valtteri Bottas on his crash helmet while Bottas showed Russell his middle finger? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, 2021 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).
Interface administrator changes
oversight
will be renamed to suppress
. This is for
technical reasons. You can comment at
T112147 if you have objections.An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Spanish Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Your edit summary was so long that it breached the 500-character limit. Please provide the full wording so that I understand what you are complaining about. 95.148.229.85 ( talk) 16:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi SSSB. I notice that {{ F1R2021}} is not being used in {{ F1 Drivers Standings}} (but it is being used in {{ F1 Constructors Standings}}); do you know if there is a reason for this? Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Shwartzman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prema.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I've been a little fearful of editing the F1stats template because of its use on many highly visited pages. The edits I noticed today at Lando's page spurred me to give it a try and help out.
Also on a more light-hearted note, I just realized I think it was your user page that I sort of copied to my own a while back. I just wanted something, anything really, to put on my page. An infobox seemed appropriate and I guess I just happened to be on a page connected with you somehow. I didn't really choose yours for any particular reason other than that:) -- DB1729 ( talk) 16:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The first Brazilian Grand Prix to be counted in the world championship was in 1973. Read the article about the 1973 race, please. MCRainbowSupernova8196 ( talk) 22:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The race was the twentieth and penultimate round of the 2019 Formula One World Championship and marked the 48th running of the Brazilian Grand Prix and the 47th time that the race has been run as a World Championship event since the inaugural event in 1973.makes it sound like the first Brazilian Grand Prix was 1973, but it was 1972. ( 1972 Brazilian Grand Prix)
There's not much information on those races so who knows? They could've been called the Brazilian Grand Prix. Also what about the American Grand Prize? It's not called the United States Grand Prix but it's considered the United States Grand Prix. MCRainbowSupernova8196 ( talk) 22:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Also the Red Bull Ring, where the Austrian Grand Prix is held, is in Styria MCRainbowSupernova8196 ( talk) 20:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past four months (February through May 2021).
Hello everyone and welcome to the 21st issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
Scripts Submit your new/improved script here
|
My apologies for this long-overdue issue, and if I missed any scripts.
Hopefully going forward we can go back to monthly releases - any help would be appreciated. Thanks, --
DannyS712 (
talk)
13:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).
https://gpracingstats.com/drivers/rubens-barrichello/wins— Preceding unsigned comment added by MCRainbowSupernova8196 ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Please post my comment of 13:57 (which you removed at 14:17) to the place you think it should go. This allows others to chime in. Alternatively, respond here (I'll be watching both pages). If you don't respond that will indicate you're dropping your claim that the Daily Beast analysis is unsourced. 31.124.153.250 ( talk) 14:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
References
The results from Wikipedia are taken from F1 directly and the stats are correct. 2012 United States GP was the last time Mercedes finished both cars without points. I don't know why you keep deleting this as this is correct. Consider it an original research or something. You can see from all results that it is correct; changing this is not necessary. Formula 1 itself and other sources like Racing-Statistics.com put this as the last finish without points.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14ba:a301:296d::1 ( talk) 13:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Your latest edit summary is somewhat disingenuous. The points you made were rebutted in the edit of 11:01, 19 June 2021 and you have not issued a rejoinder. 31.124.153.250 ( talk) 10:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Re your message on my talk page, numerous sources have been provided for the added content. Which part of the content do you claim is unsourced? 31.124.153.250 ( talk) 10:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
A link for you; Sealioning. It's up to you how you want to spend your own time, of course. But as long as you continue to entertain this editor, they will continue to engage you in endless discussion about Wikipedia policy that is not going to change just because they wish to redefine what Original Research means. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Welby has now stood himself down till at least September, after the Sun obtained a copy of Harry and Meghan's official marriage certificate, signed by him, which claims that they were married on May 19, with Harry's father and Meghan's mother as witnesses, so he is unlikely to be making any further comment) breaks several of Wikipedia's policies.
Read
WP:SYNTH, make sure it complies with
WP:SYNTH, then I will be happy to take a look. What I am not going to do is continue to argue with you about what the original research policy means, when
WP:OR has already made it abundantly clear. I have also pointed out which parts are the issue before now.
SSSB ( talk) 18:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
unless you can provide a coherent argument setting out why you think that you are wasting your time.- I have explained to you multiple times that your contributions make conclusions that your sources do not. Therefore, they are WP:SYNTHESIS of those sources.
you cannot use the statement to claim as fact that they lied.- we don't. Oprah with Meghan and Harry#Private exchange of vows doesn't call them liars. The section does not imply they lied. A lie is widely interpreted as being untruthful with the intent to decieve. Oprah with Meghan and Harry#Private exchange of vows does not state that they were tring to decieve anyone, so it does not imply they lied. As far as I am aware, non of the sources suggest they intended to decieve, so none of them imply they lied. So I'm not sure what the "very dangerous ground" is.
Also, some sources allege that the friends also said that "they were married on the Saturday". That is not a statement that they did not get married on the Wednesday.That kind of analysis is for secondary sources to make, not you.
private marriage of a member of the royal family before an Anglican clergyman is valid and they are not required to repeat the ceremony in faciae ecclesiaedoesn't mean that their private marriage before an Anglican clergyman was their legal marriage. Their later statement (as interpreted by sources) means that thier legal wedding was Saturday.
An acceptable paraphrase of "they were married on the Saturday" is "they were already married on the Saturday".I could equally argue that "they were married on the Saturday" is a re-phrasing of "their legal marriage was on the Saturday". So that argument is meaningless.
The analyses of the law professors are relevant background information.
- no, it is
WP:OR because you are the only person connecting the analysis to this marriage.
it is the couple's statement that they were married on the Wednesday that means that their private marriage before an Anglican clergyman was their legal marriage.
- as I explained:
Your problem is that after the sources with titles "Harry and Meghan admit they lied" or variations thereof which featured in the numbered reference list were removed you added them back.If sources do call them liars (I am not saying they do or don't), not only is it within Wikipedia's right, but also (arguablly) part of Wikipedia's duty, to report that they have been accused of lying (and any responses). There have been no claims that they lied, or any responses to claims of lying that I am aware of.
WP:NPOV requires that you do not feature the view of the internet bloggers without balancing it out with the view of Harry and Meghan.
- firstly we don't cite internet bloggers, we cite journalists. We do balance it out. You will note that we mention the interview statement, the refuting of the statement and then the spokesperson's statment. We have included (to the best of my knowledge) everything that Harry and Meghan have said on the subject. I am not aware of any reliable, secondry source (so not you) that argues they were legally married on the Wednesday. Therefore, Wikipedia has cited (to my knowledge) every defence of the Sussexes in reliable sources, including any defense they have made of themselves. Therefore,
WP:NPOV is being followed. If we have missed a reliable source (so not your edits on Wikipedia) defending them, please point it out.
SSSB (
talk)
09:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The day after the interview aired a spokeswoman emphasised to Town and Country magazine that the "secret marriage" was a "private exchange of vows".[ref] [5] As noted above, distinguished law professors say that the private marriage of a member of the royal family before an Anglican clergyman is valid and they are not required to repeat the ceremony in facie ecclesiae (this is a Latin phrase which means "in church").
One recent effect of this is that law professors argue that Camilla Parker Bowles and the Prince of Wales are not married (see argument in the cited article, Marriage Act 1949 cited above and Clandestine Marriages Act 1753). Harry and Meghan exchanged vows per verba de praesenti in front of the Archbishop on Wednesday (Camilla and Charles did not do this).[ref]
you finally admit that "they were married on the Saturday" cannot be used to support the claim that the legal wedding was on the Saturday.- irrelevant as Oprah with Meghan and Harry doesn't use that sentence to support anything.
Then you claim that I am the only person connecting the analysis to this marriage. Where, pray, do I say that the analysis (which was prepared fourteen years before this marriage) is connected to it? The criterion is not "connection" but relevance"
- connected/relevant, potayto/potahto. You want to quit the
WP:wikilawyering?
Your reason for suppressing the information that private royal weddings are legal can only be to make mischief.
- no, it is because it is your
WP:OR, as you are the only person making the argument.
This is why you are now in serious trouble. Harry is not thousands of miles away in another jurisdiction, he's right here in Windsor. Welcome. You're 21 years old and thus fully responsible for your actions.
- this is a threat. You can't bully me into accepting your edits. Take a look at
Wikipedia:No legal threats.
The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is obviously not "connected" to a murder in 2021 because it was passed 160 years before, but it is relevant because it may be mentioned in the indictment as authority for it.
- the key word here is "may". It "may" be relevant. As Harry and Meghan have clarified that they actually got married on Saturday, the fact that they could have gotten married on Wednesday means the marriage law is not relevant by default. If and when reliable sources mention it, feel free to add it.
You may like to ponder the proverb "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"
- I'm not in a hole, or digging.
Note that nobody is analysing Harry and Meghan's words - they are simply being reported. This is not "original research" or "synthesis", it's reporting as it should be - presenting the readers with all relevant facts to keep them informed.
- it's how journalists report, Wikipedia does not report in the same way. We report only what other sources explicitly say about the subject. No source has explicitly said Wednesday's exchange of vows could have been a legal wedding, so nor can we.
Since the statement was not universally refuted WP:NPOV requires you to give proportionate coverage to the views of those who accepted its truth.
- I only included the "not" because you refute. That's not good enough.
That's your analysis,
- it is. But as no source has been presented that defends it, or refutes the grounds for refution, Wikipedia cannot claim either of things occured.
you then put quotation marks around what follows, implying that those are the spokeswoman's actual words
- no, it implies that I quoted the cited source, which you admit I did.
You say "If we have missed a reliable source..." Are you speaking on behalf of someone else, perhaps as an undisclosed paid editor?
- I speak on behalf Wikipedia.
My patience with you has run out. I am fed up of repeating myself. Unless you present a new argument, you will be ignored.
SSSB (
talk)
19:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The fall guy that night was Southgate (pictured) who missed his attempt, causing his mother Barbara to ask: 'Why didn't you just belt the ball?'
In the traumatic aftermath of the defeat Southgate's mother Barbara famously revealed that she said to her son "Why didn't you just belt it?"
...the next time Priti Patel goes to a restaurant she is going to have to get the food herself because there won't be anyone to serve her.
Why did you include the word "merely" and claim the Wednesday ceremony was neither "legal" nor "official" if not to insinuate that Harry and Meghan are liars?
- that's not what "merely" insinuates. It only insinuates that a ceremony that is not legal or official is less significant that one that is official or legal or both. Here is a defintion of "merely" for you.
[7]
deliberate falsification of it.
- so you are just going to state that without proof?
Again, the headline "Meghan and Harry finally admit there was no secret backyard wedding", apart from being untrue, contains the implication that they are liars.
- true - missed that. But what I am supposed to do about it. The Mercury News are perfectly entitled to believe that they lied, and there is no evidence to say they didn't.
Even when reported speech is inside quotation marks there is no guarantee that the speaker has been accurately reported.
- true. But what I am supposed to about it. Unless you've got proof that it isn't what was said, we have no alternative but to assume that it is.
"The couple exchanged personal vows a few days before the official/legal wedding on May 19"
have the ring of authenticity about them. The bowlesderised version put out by the internet bloggers
"this private event did not constitute a "legal" or "official" service"
and variations thereof do not. - firstly, this is nothing more than your opinion, secondly, you keep refering to internet bloggers when there are none.
So the secondary sources' allegation that "they were married on the Saturday" means "they got married on the Saturday" is not used by the article to allege they got married on the Saturday (admission, your rebutter, §1). Thus the words that I see in the article
"Later in March, a spokesman for the couple confirmed that they merely exchanged "personal vows", and the private event was neither a "legal" nor "official" service"
must be a mirage. - that sentence you quoted does not say "they were married on the Saturday", it says they were not (legally or officially) married on the Wednesday (the private event) because it was neither official nor legal.
You go on to claim that I am the only person who stated "that private royal weddings are legal".
- let me clarify. You are the only person who claims that this private royal marriage is legal, or that the fact that private royal marriages are legal is relevant.
Point me to where they [clarified that they actually got married on Saturday],
-
[6]
explaining what you mean by "relevant by default".
- bad word choice by me. What I mean is: "the fact that they could have gotten married on Wednesday does not mean the marriage law is relevant by default." i.e. the marriage law is relevant just because two people get married. For example,
Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton doesn't mention any laws on marriage. The opening word "As" demonstrates this is analysis...
- no it doesn't. It's not.
I don't get the impression that you're a trained journalist.
- that's not relevant. I don't get the impression you are a trained journalist either.
You say "No source has explicitly said Wednesday's exchange of vows could have been a legal wedding". Harry and Meghan didn't say it "could have been" - they said it was
- no they didn't. They said they got married on Wednesday (without specifing if this was a legal marriage, a official marriage, both or neither), they later said (through a spokesperson) that they Wednesday ceremony was neither official nor legal. What you fail to understand is that those two sentences do not contradict. As is argued in the Mercury article,
[6] it is likely that Harry and Meghan meant that they considered the Wednesday ceremony to their marriage, but they acknowledge, through thier spokesperson that this was not the official or legal wedding, just a personal ceremony.
The solstitial version doesn't say "Wednesday's exchange of vows could have been a legal wedding" either.
- no it doesn't. That's my point, only you say that.
From your conjugation you appear to be American.
- how is this relevant?
Is that why you don't consider the words of our royal family to be "sources"?
- they are. But no royal has (explitly) said that the Wednesday ceremony was legal. And a spokespersons speaking on behalf of a royal has said the Wednesday ceremony wasn't a legal one.
asked you why, since not everyone refutes the statement that the Wednesday marriage was the legal one, you didn't mention the viewpoint that it was the legal marriage per WP:NPOV. You didn't answer...
- I did. I explained that I can't mention the viewpoint that it was the legal marriage because it is your
WP:OR. I cannot justify the inclusion of an argument if some random person is the only one making it.
You then claim "no source has been presented that defends it, or refutes the ground for refution". I see nothing in the solstitial version that "defends it, or refutes the ground for refution". What does "refutes the ground for refution" mean anyway? "Refution" isn't in the dictionary.
- let me clarify. There is not a single source that argues in support of the claim that the Sussexs were married (legally) on Wednesday, or that argues against sources that argue against the claim that they couldn't be married (legally) on Wednesday (this second point is what I mean by "refutes the ground for refution"
SSSB (
talk)
14:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
References
The only reason why I put down the Styrian flag down because it’s also the same as on the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_MotoGP_World_Championship# on there Calendar ConnorAmy ( talk) 11:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
This isn't you, of course; I thought MCRainbowSupernova8196's attitude at the Belgian Grand Prix article was unreasonable, and had clearly exceeded a sensible number of reversions, and didn't look like stopping. I'm sorry, I couldn't work out how to use the 3RR template at the 3RR page, so I just put it in the incidents page as I felt MCRainbowSupernova8196 probably needs some warning that unilaterally ignoring everyone and writing French isn't a good behaviour. I hope I haven't put my foot in it too badly. Since you're mentioned, I'm letting you know. Elemimele ( talk) 12:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).
Interface administrator changes
|
|
I record my opinion. In fact, in most books, Thiyya and Ezhava are recorded. [2] So why aren't historians writing about Ezhavas in an article like the one mentioned here? While celebrities, including Edgar (Caste and Tribes Of South India), have included the category of thiyyas in the "T" category, the Ezhavas appear to have been included in the "I" category. Famous historians have all included the two in the same way but recorded differently. There is a Wikipedia called Nair, but there is also a Wikipedia, Nambiar, a subcaste of Nair. So it seems necessary to have a Wikipedia to document the thiyya category, or try to include thiyya in the Ezhava page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.208.73.12 ( talk) 11:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear ssb,
Regarding your recent edits on Ezhava , why did you changed the original caption of the image ?
Also as far as I understood the user was talking in talk page to add more ezhava photos instead of thiyya photos, but you renamed all thiyya photos and made it as ezhava. Now another user added a good ezhava family photo. You can now keep the original caption of the image of thiyyas in the page you renamed.
Also in dispute between ezhava and thiyya, you should mention it as thiyya only and not ezhava. This issue hasbeen discussed in the page and added that section , when some objects for a new page for thiyya.
Also
In 2020 July, Kerala state government has issued an order to record Thiyya as Thiyya and not as a part of Ezhava nor its subcaste. In India, converting or writing one caste as another is a criminal offense.
Link to order kerala government's order from their official site :
https://education.kerala.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/govt.order_3072020.pdf
See the Kerala state government order and the followed news report given on right.
I hope Wikipedia also abides by the Indian Kerala government's official government order on the Thiyya caste.
You should keep thiyya photo as it is with original caption and not change it to ezhava, the user was asking to add more ezhava photos , which a good photos are added after wards.
Please keep the original caption of the photos you changed.
Thank yoou.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.197.167 ( talk) 08:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
As for the claim that Kerala now reconises the two as seperate castes, I can not read the language of those docuements. Nor was I able to find abything to that effect in English. However, if this is true, you are welcome to start a wider dicussion. However, because of the reasons I outlined above, I will not comply with your request to change the captions back.
With regards to your concerns with the dispute section of the article, I am not sure what you would like me to do, please construct an
WP:edit request in the form of "change 'x' to 'y'".
SSSB (
talk)
08:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This natrually raises the question about whether Thiyya and Ezhava should be considered differently by Wikipedia as well. But:
a) Wikipedia follows what sources say, if most sources still consider them the same, then so will we.
b) If Tamil Nadu is the only one that considers them seperate, then this is not sufficent grounds for Wikipedia to do so. If Kerala, the national international government and/or other authoritive bodies consider them seperate, then the fact that Tamil Nadu considers them seperate is of no consequence.
Wikipedia says people from Malabar are called as Thiyya and is having different caste organizations for them.So there is no point in changing the caption of images from thiyya to ezhava ,as page discuss both these castes.
- the page discusses what is considered to be one caste, with several different names. The only positive thing that having different captions achieves is to distinguish where these images were taken (Malabar, or not), the negative was raised on the talk page: that this unjustifable compares different parts of the community. To adress the different organistation arguement.
Catholics and
Church of England are different organistations, but they are all
Christians. So I am not sure what that arguement argues.
Also the source from these photos took mention caption as thiyya.
- Again, this is simply because different people use different names for this caste, Thiyya and Ezhava are considered to be synonomous.
Tommorw these well known historical paintings and photos will get published in news paper or any academic journel with the caption you changed from 'thiyya' to 'ezhava' , it will be a great damage to the photo and the historical background of the photo itself, lots of academic problems is going to happen.
- are you saying that newspapers use Wikipedia images and captions, or am I going to be in the paper. In either case, it doesn't change anything. Wikipedia considers Thiyya and Ezhava as synonmous, the fact that the images captions now reflect this doesn't damage anything as they are considered to be the same group. In any case, the image names are still the same.
I therefore still see the justifcation of using a consistent term for the caste in the article, and don't see the justification in changing it back.
SSSB (
talk)
11:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
As the matter is under par consideration with the ad hoc person, i may be delighted to aknowledge mine denoting note into your's kind attention..The aforesaid Caste/Community prevalent among the People of Kerala who may be known as 'thiyyas' are of distinctive caste identities which may explicitly distinct them from the 'Izhava' community, and theirs customs and tradition. Ninetyeightpointone ( talk) 12:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thiyya caste has been created in Malayalam Wikipedia for a long time. [3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.208.73.12 ( talk) 12:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
If synonimous , keep the original sub set name intact, what is the point of changing ?- to remain consistent within the article. By constantly switching between the names we imply that they are not synomous, we imply they are different, which contradicts consensus, reliable sources and the article lead.
Ezhava people from
Malabar region are called as Thiyya and southern kerala people are called as ezhava itself.That is what source is mentioning and wikipedia says the same.
- yes. But that doesn't mean we need to keep swithing between the terms.
So if you are using the image of thiyya (ezhava subset or ezhava people from malabar) , you should use as thiyya.
- That argument doesn't follow. If Thiyya and Ezhava are synomous (which you acklowedge they are) then what is the point of switching between the names? To identify where the photo was taken? Why is that relevant to the article?
If you use ezhava , world will think these people are from south kerala ezhzvas and not from british malabar thiyyas.
- says who? I don't. As I said above, the geographical location of these images is of little to no relevance.
Source says , thiyya people from malabar claimed higher position than rest, this had been argumented for a long and added that, why did you chaged that to ezhava of malabar? Why did you chaged the original source term ?
- I only wrote that in one instance, I wrote that because it was the first time that the article acknowleges that Thiyya and Ezhava are not universally considered as synomous.
ou are changing the 'thiyya' from 'ezhava' , which is a violation of the sources provided
- no its not. As the sources provided, and the article, establish that Thiyya and Ezhava are considered identical.
also of these are long disputed talk consensus product , you cannot replace thiyya with ezhava
- I saw no such consensus.
At least mention in the caption of photos you altered as 'Thiyya(Ezhava)' , which solves both side problems.
- no it doesn't.
SSSB (
talk)
12:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, SSSB. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review
Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially
the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow
post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using
Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to
secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status
can be revoked.
Useful links:
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac ( talk) 15:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
On 16 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 French Grand Prix, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the size of Le Castellet allowed the 2021 French Grand Prix to host more spectators than other events during the COVID-19 pandemic in France? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 French Grand Prix. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, 2021 French Grand Prix), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi SSSB. The official standings published at the end of the British Grand Prix does not include position achieved during the sprint qualifying. Why are we doing that here? Island92 ( talk) 19:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Just seen that you're an alumnus of the University of Leicester on your user page. I went there for a Medical Mooting competition back in 2019, in what I believe would've been the law school library. My co-counsel and I didn't get far, though. Ended up leaving early, and getting a Nando's.
Anyway, I just wanted to apologise if I came across as impolite to you the other day. I've been away from WP for a while, and in hindsight, I should've thought to discuss the issue at the talk page; I wrongly thought my edit summary alone explained the situation well enough. From what I can see, the material hasn't been reinstated, so until there's official confirmation it can stay that way, for sure. My main areas of focus have always been anti-vandalism and CSD, in all fairness, so substantially improving articles isn't really up my alley. I'll be taking a step back from the article in question, and the F1 WikiProject as a whole, and instead will be focusing on what I know I'm good at. Patient Zero talk 00:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)