User talk:Britmax
[edit] Removed unsourced unexplained changes with no edit summary
If you have come here to complain that I have reverted your edit under the above edit summary, you may wish to consider the idea that your energy would be better spent obtaining a source or remembering the reason you edited and putting that down as an edit summary when you redo it. Otherwise. if in doubt see rule one. Britmax (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Reverted unsourced apparently random change of a number with no edit summary
Many of these changes are just drive by vandalism. Please tell us, in an edit summary at least, why you think the number you have changed is incorrect.
[edit] Reverted unexplained deletion of content with no edit summary
You may have a good reason for taking stuff out. Unless you at least leave an edit summary we won't know, now, will we?
[edit] Article name - your infobox addition
You seem to be trying to add this section to the infobox on the above article. Unfortunately, the infobox does not support this addition which therefore does not show. Using "Show Review" button, in the line of buttons at the bottom of ther edit screen next to "save" before saving would tell you this.
[edit] Costa Concordia
I've amended the edit note per your suggestion, made it sound a little less dictatorial too. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Opel
But GM´s Opel unit (Adam Opel AG) is responsible for both Opel and Vauxhall in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniotx (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You should visit www.opel.com, where you can find the informations. Did you got your informations?(talk)
[edit] Thierry Henry
With years of experience in editing football articles on Wikipedia I know full well that infoboxes should contain "League Appearances and goals ONLY", and that is exactly why I correctly updated the stats following his league appearance against Swansea City yesterday. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Ayrton Senna
Yeah, haha, I thought that's what you meant. I couldn't let his silly edit summary slide, and I see he reverted me and Falcadore reverted it back again. I admire Senna, but Wikipedia is about striking a balance, and that's something a lot of people can't do when they talk about Senna. It seems that so many people forget how difficult he could be, and want to make out that he was perfect. Even he wouldn't have said that. But taking the article to task and making it truly NPOV would create wars from here to next year. Little by little, maybe? Hahah.. I might have the week off work too unless I can dig my van out! Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Why?
Why did you restore my convo with MF. It's my talk page, and we were finished with it. Please don't do that again. Wingard (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
That restriction box will go away in 3 months, and as I saif my convo with MF was finished, so why leave the convo. And about the conclusions, people will forget in time. Wingard (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Only notice
Stop edit-warring on Wingard's talkpage. Other than block notices, declined unblocks, and the edit-restrictions, he may blank as much as he wants. Your most recent reversion actually removed his text (and caused me 4 edit conflicts trying to assist). Yes, he should be intelligent enough to know that WP:ARCHIVE is the best way, but it's his choice, and he'll suffer the consequences accordingly. If you revert his removal of anything by the above, or remove any of his text again, I will block you for edit-warring (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Esther Rantzen
I'm new here. I'll add the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.61.65 (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Rape during the occupation of Germany
I don't know what you see wrong with my well-sourced addition. Norman Naimark is a respected historian, and I do not see any consensus on talk or archives for removing him. It is true that this addition was removed at one point, but it's quite different from my edit [1]. Anyhow, I have additional sources -- in any event, this should be brought up on the talk page, not simply removed without an appropriate explanation. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Jonathan Spector
Hello. Was wondering why you reverted with such a forceful edit summary? The article is about an American, and has been stable using US date formatting, US spelling, and the US word for the sport he plays, since before it arrived on my watchlist at the start of the season. My edit reverted a change away from that stable usage made by an anonymous editor earlier today. I'd be interested in why you think making a change to the British word for the sport is necessary just because Mr Spector happens to practise it in this country. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problem. There was a time when I wouldn't let myself edit after a certain time of night to try and reduce the irritability factor, till I realised I was no less irritable at breakfast time ;-) I'll restore the American status quo ante, and if you or anyone else cares enough to push for a change, it can go to the talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
Hello, your edit is still there! Just wondering, so I know for future edits what was wrong with the 'former terminus' bit. Thanks! --Chip123456 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Article restructuring at the Beatles
There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input at The Beatles, it sounds like you support the proposal, if so I hope you wouldn't mind indicating your position with a support, thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
