User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia. To acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Happy editing!

Mootros (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


OK, where would you like me to start? You've just accused me of edit-warring - read WP:AGF and don't do that again. Your persistent usage of a conditional tense to describe something that has happened in the past is bad grammar. I don't know if English is your first language, but the past tense is correct in this case. Furthermore, your other edit removed several wikilinks and details concerning Vettel's records. Removal of information can be considered vandalism and persistent behaviour of this type may get you blocked from editing. Think about what you added with your edit, and then look at what you took away. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do. don't call my edits "stupid". You want me to be a wiki lawyer and go find some rule against that? The current grammar is fine, I don't care if you change the grammar though, not a big deal. I removed a bunch of useless info in the lede and replaced it with useful info. No one cares exactly how many days and minutes he was old when some record happened, nor is it a big deal what race it happened, such information belongs in the body of the wiki, not clogging up the lede. The current lede is a massive improvement over the last lede. Also, don't threaten me with blocks. I'm trying to improve this wiki, you appear not to be, and only interested in pushing your version of grammar and what have you. (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
What I am telling you is that if you accuse people of bad faith, edit-warring etc when there are no grounds for it, your editing career will be short. It's up to you. I had no idea you were the editor who introduced the incorrect usage of the conditional tense in that sentence, so don't take that personally. With regard to your "improvement" of the lead paragraph, I beg to differ. The writing style was better beforehand, included more detail and, contrary to your opinion, I think it does matter when these events occurred. In any case, you removed them without putting them anywhere else. Maybe you'd like to take it to the talk page and discuss the edits you want to make. The generally accepted cycle of bold, revert, discuss is the best way to handle it. You made an edit, someone disagreed with you, so you take it to discussion. If other editors agree with you, then I won't be arguing. That's how edit wars are averted. Your last comment is again a violation of WP:AGF, and my patience with that kind of thing will run out sooner rather than later. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, I can call your edit stupid if I like - you won't find any rule to bother the admins on that score. What I can't do is call you stupid, and I haven't, because it's a personal attack. You're the one sailing close to the wind with AGF. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
All that minutia of dates and races belongs in the body, not in the lede. I did not yet read to see if all the stuff that WAS in the lead was also in the body, as that's wikis are SUPPOSED to be-- anything in the lede is also supposed to be in the body. The lede is just a general summary of the wiki as a whole and highlighting important details. So if you were annoyed the material was removed and not found in the body, you should have just moved it there instead of reverting without explaining, instead of making personal attacks and threatening people66.190.31.229 (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The best thing to do when making edits is to be sure that any information you are removing is already covered elsewhere, not rely on how you think articles "should" be written. Neither I nor any other editor is here to clean up after your mistakes, and besides, I didn't think your edit was in an encyclopedic style sufficient for the lead paragraph. If you think the lead paragraph is too detailed, take it to the talk page. I disagree with you, so that's enough to start a discussion. As I say, if people agree with you then a well-written piece of prose can be put together to replace what's there now. Don't accuse me of making personal attacks, unless you want to try backing that up on an admin page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You are clearly not interested in maiking this wiki better, so you should perhaps consider not editing it. You were the one who removed the comments about Vettel having KERS problems. Anyone even remotely in the know about F1 knew exactly what happened that race weekend. You just wanted to remove without explaining, claiming it had no cite. It was so obvious from it didn't even need a cite, and you could have simply placed a "need a cite" in it, but you wanted to delete it. If you were ignorant of what happend on race weekend one second on google could have dispelled that ignoranceYou chose to delete, just like today you revert war on grammar, and try to revert the lede claiming that info was removed in thelede when you could have just placed the info elsewhere if it were true. And again you threaten people " back it up on the admin page"? Do you thik this is a grade school playground or something? You really need to get over yourself and chill with the veiled threats66.190.31.229 (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, what I'm going to do is cut through the junk here. You have violated WP:AGF a number of times, and show no sign of bothering to comply with it at all. I wasn't ignorant of anything during the race - I removed the KERS claim because it was unsourced. If you added it without a source then you only have yourself to blame. You saw it on TV so it must be true? Doesn't cut it. ANY unsourced information can be removed at any time by anyone. I am not obliged to provide a source just because you think one wasn't necessary. If you don't understand that, it's not my problem. Reverting bad grammar is not any kind of warring, it is clearing up bad grammar. Partly why I took out your whole edit to the lead paragraph was that it was poorly written and not fit for the lead of an important article. I am not threatening you, I am promising you - if you want to make accusations against me, man up and do it properly on an admin page rather than bleat about it here. If you want to start a discussion to change the Vettel lead paragraph, do it. If not, we're finished here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The point wasn't you COULD remove it, the point was anyone who knew anything about F1 wouldn't have removed it. At most, they would have requested a source. You chose deletetion, just like you chose to war over simple grammatical nuances, and claim you are trying to stop removal of apparently important info in the lede by reverting instead of making sure they were already in the body. These are the choices you have made. (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait. You're accusing me of reverting removal of information without making sure if it was somewhere else, when you have just removed it without the same precaution? You don't think that's a double standard? You think I'm bound by some rule that you're not bound by? And to stop your uncivil insults about my F1 knowledge, the startling truth is that the KERS claim needed a source not because I thought it wasn't true, but because it could have been seen as contentious by someone not familiar with the sport, and could have been challenged under WP:UNDUE. Contentious stuff goes - WP:GRAPEVINE. That's how Wikipedia works - it isn't just experts on here, you know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Most of the info i knew was already in other parts of the wiki, just the question was how specific. I don't think the exact amount of days and whatnot belongs in the lede as it's just minutia. The lede is supposed to be a succinct summary. Now that I looked over the wiki more completely, it seems as if you have been very misleading, if not dishonest. The info removed from the lede as far as I can tell is all in fact found elsewhere in the wiki. I'm sure you have some explanation for this straw man involving admins and esoteric wiki rules, right? Maybe another veiled threat? (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This isn't the place to discuss the content of the lead paragraph of Vettel's article. I happen to think the level of detail could be toned down slightly, but not to the extent that you did. Take it to the Vettel talk page, as I have said a number of times. Then you go and say I'm dishonest. You don't get it, do you? I'm sure you'll take this as some kind of threat, but it's a word to the wise. There are many editors on here who, if you deal with them like you're attempting to deal with me, will be templating you and taking you to admins. As I said before, over and above the detail being removed from the lead paragraph (regardless of wherever else it may or may not be), it was poorly written. That in itself was enough to get rid of it. The straw man thing - another AGF violation - I will ignore. Your blah accusations wouldn't hold up anywhere, which is presumably why you don't want to back them up. Listen, I'm not wasting my time here while you insult me or try to get me to attack you personally, you've picked the wrong guy. Start the discussion and the article might get improved. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Tony Ferguson (fighter) with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

it was removed because it's uncited, and frankly bigoted to only reference one part of a fighter's heritage. (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd ask you about this edit [1] - what was wrong with that initial sentence? Couldn't tell from your edit summary - thought I'd ask rather than revert. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you've reverted - no worries. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Ya, was gonna change something minor and I accidentally thought that was written in the 2006 section.