User talk:Burgring

Edit summaries

Just because there is no edit summary attached to an edit, that does not mean the edit is invalid and the edit should be reverted. If you had compared the old version of that article with the rewrites I made, you would see that the grammar in the old version was so poor that the entry was practically unreadable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective changes such as that need explanation. Burgring (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Formula One

Here is some research for you which demonstrates that numerical sorting is NOT the same as Constructors' sort User:Falcadore/sandbox3. --Falcadore (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever say, or suggest, that it was? All I said was that I preferred a constructors' championship position order sort, but that I'd be happy with alphabetical as a compromise. Burgring (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though all the previous articles are sorted by number? You want to change that because you prefer it? --Falcadore (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like championship order, and the numbers (recently at least) reflected that, whereas now they are completely arbitrary. Burgring (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have already broken 3RR on that template yourself. There is no excuse for it, and trust me when I say that breaking 3RR and then threatening to report someone for 3RR never goes down well because it looks like you are trying to force your edits onto a page by threatening admin intervention if you do not get your way. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a threat, that was friendly advice based on an informed guess as to what someone might do, seeing as it happened already to you so recently. Burgring (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what user talk pages are for. Doing it in an edit summary as you revert those changes is aggressive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read WP:BRD? There is a convention that if you are reverted you don't do it again, without discussion. I was trying to save you from more hassle, that's all. Burgring (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if another editor reverts you back again do you A) revert back AGAIN and cite BRD or do you B) not revert it and let the admins sort it out.

Here's a hint, the correct answer is B. Because otherwise it just prolongs the cycle of reverting. --Falcadore (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Template:Formula One teams. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing that other editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Tvx1 (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

F1 2015

Burgring, I have undone your edits to the 2015 Formula One season article where you reverted all of the driver numbers to "TBA". The reason for this is because those numbers will be used by those drivers for the rest of their careers. They are fixed. You do raise a fair point in saying that we cannot predict who will be the 2014 WDC, but that is not an issue unless the article claims a particular driver will use #1. Another way of looking at it is to say that these are the numbers the drivers will use unless they become WDC. We are not speculating on anything, because the FIA has made it clear that the drivers will use these numbers for the rest of their careers - and even if they become WDC and choose to use #1, then their normal number will be put aside so that no-one else can take it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Engine noise controversy

Hi Burgring,

I have recently undone some of your changes to the 2014 F1 season article, removing the section on the "engine noise controversy". I am posting on your talk page to explain why.

Firstly, I do not think there is a controversy. Yes, a lot of people are talking about it, but that just makes it recent. Ricciardo's disqualification and the fuel flow sensor issue are controversial, because it had the potential to affect race results days and weeks after the race had been run. This, on the other hand, is just people complaining that they do not like the noise.

Secondly, there is no real scope for an outcome here. The engines are smaller than last year, and with the tight packaging of the cars, the old engines will not fit into them. The manufacturers have sunk tens of millions of dollars and years into the development of the engines, and since the ERS technology cannot be carried over to the old engines without substantial redevelopment, they will not agree to giving up on them.

At most, the only potential outcome of all this is changing the dimensions of the exhaust outlet. And if that happens, then it might get covered in the form of a bullet point in the technical changes section - but it certainly is not worth an entire, dedicated subsection. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]