- 1 Complaints about my edit reversions
- 2 Article name
- 3 Anthony Blunt
- 4 Mirage III Cost and Produce.
- 5 Template talk:Merthyr, Tredegar and Abergavenny Railway
- 6 longitudinal versus longditudinal
- 7 Request for input on Adolf Hitler
- 8 Rhodes - In case you weren't aware
- 9 Oddness
- 10 Ruhollah Khomeini
- 11 What's up?
- 12 Rollbacker
- 13 "Details" definition
- 14 Valentine Greets!!!
- 15 Kirkwall ba game
Complaints about my edit reversions
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.
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
Mirage III Cost and Produce.
Hey,Can You put the Mirage III cost and Aircraft Produce sorces.I Should tell you that You and I don't Trust Nigel ash.Ok And My last Wish is Do it again And I don't know how to use the Sorces.Thanks.Load Vordemout (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
longitudinal versus longditudinal
Request for input on Adolf Hitler
Hi, I notice that you have been involved with the Hitler article. I proposed an edit showing how Hitler was influenced by Mussolini but need to get a consensus pro or con. Please take a look. Historicat (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Rhodes - In case you weren't aware
FYI, the Cecil Rhodes article is constantly being vandalised. Thanks for your effort, and the wasted time you've expended. I've discovered that it is often necessary to look at the last half-dozen edits - it is not unusual for all of them to be vandalism. e.g. In the current situation, the last good version was 9 December 2014. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this revert.
I am really not sure what happened. I had that text in my clipboard so I could quickly find where I wanted to put my response. I am not sure how it got pasted into two spots. Chillum 19:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Your excuse for reverting Khomeini's religious identification is redundant and doesn't even stand against innumerable articles of other figures who have their specific religion mentioned - whether that be catholic, baptist, Theravada Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, orthodox Judaism, reform Judaism etc. You must have much stronger reasoning for removing well cited info that has the precedent of specifics from plentiful other articles. If you can't provide better reasoning and keep reverting, i will report your suspect behaviour.188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Britmax. Are you OK? I looked at your contributions and you seem to be erasing yourself off the project; surely the Bournemouth hoo-hah isn't that bad? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, not just that, or even that to any degree. I had a desire to return to the "real world" but now feel I would be better off just cutting down my time here. Thanks for your concern but I'll be back, with a smaller commitment. Britmax (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
You have reverted my edits because of
1- Too much details for the kead
2- Poor English
First: Khomeini's hypocrisy is not "detail" this is the key to all contemporary history of Iran and the main criticism of his political life. It is backed by very reliable sources and almost undisputed.
Second: Feel free to enhance composition and strength of my writings (or leave this job to other editors) but do not justify your ruining everything by such an excuse. WP is an international collaboration project. Khomeini's article officially has asked for expert advise from Iran. Here You are! I am an Iranians expert and English is not my native language. Then what? Is it a good practice to shut my mouth? What about the invitation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRVoice (talk • contribs) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Britmax, 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.
Kirkwall ba game
If you like I could delete the entire page as it is widely known how flawed it is. Then write the absolute truth about the lies behind the "ball" The sources behind the books and information regarding this sham are written by the liars covering it up. I have taken action at great expense, to expose it. Publicy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkingtrue123 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)