User talk:Britmax

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

Complaints about my edit reversions[edit]

If you have come here to complain that I have reverted your unexplained, and/or unsourced change, and are planning to redo it, please consider Sourcing it and providing an Edit summary to tell everyone why you have made the change.

If you either cannot or do not want to do this it might be worth your while wondering why you are making the edit at all.


  • Random number changes.

In addition to the incidence of people randomely changing numbers to see if anyone notices or because they think it's big or clever, a chain of IP editors is making random nuisance changes to F1 articles. If I have reverted one of your edits which appears to be one of them, your best course is to add an explanation, consisting of a reference or at least an edit summary, when you redo it.

  • Short shelf life, vagueness and NPOV issues

A typical phrase here is "probably best known as" and although this is only an example I will explain why it does not belong in the encyclopedia. The "probably" is the vague part: words like "hopefully" and "prospectively" are the same. The "shelf life" part is the "best known as". Not only does this depend on where you are in the world and which generation you belong to but if the subject does something more notable it may not stay that way for long. "best known as" should be replaced by something more verifiable like "appeared in". NPOV comes in where phrases like "starred in" or "dominated" are used. We know they were there: whether they "starred" or "dominated" is often opinion and in any case this kind of puffery is not the job of an encyclopedia.

Article name [edit]

You seem to be trying to add a 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 summary request[edit]

I see that you have recently edited this article several times. When you edit an article it is helpful to leave an edit summary to explain in brief terms the reason for the changes you make. This would be written in the box marked Edit summary (briefly describe the changes you have made) which is below the edit box on the edit page of an article. If there is text in the box just move the cursor along to the end of the text and add your summary. There is no need to sign before saving as the editor's name or IP number and the date and time are added automatically. Britmax (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Archives[edit]

2005/6
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

˜˜˜˜[edit]

Regarding your comments here — I checked the history, and I'm guessing that the tildes in my original comment didn't "activate" because the software thought they were part of the ref name. Your nowiki tags took the ˜˜˜˜ out of the ref name, so it could become a signature, and of course it signed as you because you were responsible for making the edit in question. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm, now I see your comment at my talk. Thank you for the note; I'll restore my signature as you suggested. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz just fixed it as I was going there. I thought the ref name thing might activate, so I previewed before saving, and it was all fine, displaying just as if I'd placed the nowiki tags, and not at all the mangled reference that you see at the bottom of this revision. I think I know what happened: because I was previewing just the section, it was fine because there weren't any > characters below it on the page, but they appeared lower down on the page and activated the tag with a very very very long reference name. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That ANI signature you didn't sign[edit]

Because the 4-tilde code wasn't properly displayed before you fixed the post, the display software didn't read it as a signature. Then, when you fixed the code, the display software decided it was your signature, because you were the last editor to post at that time. Sort of a bug in the display software, I guess, but a minor one that can't be readily fixed. I've manually inserted the correct signature. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks[edit]

Hi! Sorry, but I didn't know the article was an exception to WP:NC-KO#Sea of Japan (East Sea). When did the long discussion take place? Of course, the sole use of SoJ is preferable to me as I'm a Japanese editor. I just tried to be neutral. If you know other exceptions, please let me know. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Haunting editors[edit]

I am tired of editing F1 articles because you seem to have a personal grudge against me. While my well-intended contributions are reverted by you at times for "bad English", "improper sourcing" or "excessive details", you seem to give a free pass to other editors on these exact same areas. Don't bother replying, I am not here to argue, just to let you know that I am aware of your attitude problem and find it appalling and very counter-productive. --hydrox (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "HITLER's ROLE IN THE "FINAL SOLUTION"". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 1 February 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 08:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Auchterarder railway station[edit]

Hi, with this edit, you seem to have reverted most of the page to the version of 12:02, 17 June 2010. Was there a reason for that? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WWII (neutrality; yeah right)[edit]

Yeah, that's why I found this nugget in the WWII article:

...and "de-house" the German civilian population. By the end of the war most German cities would be reduced to rubble and 7,500,000 Germans made homeless.

Yes, we have to note that the Germans were made homeless, but don't make any mention of the Einsatzgruppen death squads, or the the 1,500,000 expelled Poles (also homeless), and the 3.5 million dead Soviet POWs. Yes, Britmax, that's just hobbyhorses BS, right? --Factor01 (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to read the context but that will go as well if I think it is over detailed. Britmax (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me for losing my temper; but in my opinion WWII was not like a 19th century conflict where you can write the order of battles, fought on a field. WWII was a total war, and civilians a legitimate target and their extermination a stated goal. That's why I'm pushing for more than just a list of campaign during the war, but write a sentence or two about a few of the worst atrocities in chronological order, because they were another dimension of the war, not a separate topic. --Factor01 (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look at my submission on the WWII Talk page. There are a couple of topics that I would like to highlight one after the other (in a sentence or two). German occupation of Poland, Soviet POWs, and the SS Einsatzgruppen operations in USSR. --Factor01 (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning HITLER's ROLE IN THE "FINAL SOLUTION", to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Denver Sheriff Department[edit]

Howdy, I see you deleted my lovely table listing the deputies from this who have died. Honestly, I had no idea there was a "No memorial rule." In any case, most of the police agency articles seem to have such tables. Ought we to remove them all or replace this one? I propose we talk about this on the DSD talk page. Others may be interested. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuck[edit]

Hi, re the AN discussion, please see [1].

I hope this isn't 'canvassing' - I'm posting this to precisely 3 people (you, SarekOfVulcan, and Mr. Stradivarius), who expressed concern about the censorship, so I hope I'm OK. Best, 88.104.30.86 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Respectively[edit]

Hi, I see that you've come across an edit made by the IP known to me as both "Mr. Respectively" and "Mr. Update!!!" (the latter becuase of a favourite edit summary). They go mainly for heritage railway articles - both lines and stations - and insert poorly-written statements, often highly speculative, always unreferenced. Here's one from Nov 2012. It's difficult to clean up everything they do, because the IP address changes frequently - sometimes more than once in the same day. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting a reversion made by me using STiki- I'm new to using it and it's diff viewer is a bit iffy, but thanks for catching that. Cheers! --Lixxx235 (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

RMS Lusitania[edit]

Well, I agree, no source is given at List of compositions by Frank Bridge, but I'm a little surprised you didn't simply add a [citation needed] tag. It hasn't been summarily turfed out of his article yet. I must admit that Petroc Trelawny did give a slightly different title for the piece when he played it on his BBC Radio 3 programme this morning, but I somehow doubt he made up all the details about the little girl to whom it was dedicated, or the circumstances of its premier. A source should be relatively easy to find. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Described by Naxos as "a masterpiece": [2], also described here and here. This would probably be the perfect source for the article, but it's at blogspot. What do you think? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC) p.s. re-listening to Petroc, the piece was first performed at the 1915 Proms [3], curiously as part of a programme of "Popular Italian music", conducted by Henry Wood. So that was 15 Sept, barely four months after the tragedy.
Would you prefer me to open a discussion thread at Talk:RMS Lusitania? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
It would be a good idea. I was going to suggest the Sydney Herald as a source as some editors remove blogs on sight no matter how reliable they may be. Britmax (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I guess wiki policy takes no account of the actually quality if any blog. The Sydney Herald is a nice source, but it fails to say when Bridge actually wrote the piece. I'll open a thread anyway. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Edited part of Caterham F1 Team with no explanation[edit]

Will Stevens Rio Haryanto Julian Leal all drove in The 2014 Siverstone test which makes them test driver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorsporteditor (talkcontribs) 17:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Britmax (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Acton Main Line railway station may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • at Old Oak Common (e.g. for [[High Speed 2|HS2]])|style=background:#F0F0F0; font-weight: bold;)}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)