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

I would have thought that the recent allegations against him had some notability? A sub-section perhaps? 86.169.0.121 (talk)

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)[reply]

Hello, Britmax. You have new messages at Template talk:Merthyr, Tredegar and Abergavenny Railway.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would you please explain why you did this revert? I'm pretty sure that longitudinal is correct.
Yours --Baumfreund-FFM (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.58.106.252.233 (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Valentine Greets!!!

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. Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve, Happy editing, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 01:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

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)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Red Rum, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Redrum, Stud and Kells. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made the same reversion (twice) you did, to removed the origin of the aircraft's name from the lead paragraph in Tibbets' article. I don't want to run afoul of wp:err, so I took it to the talk page.--rogerd (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I notice you have reverted my expansion of this article. If you look back I actually undertook a huge amount of work on the article to bring it up to B-Class in the first place. It seems to me that the location where Haig was at the moment the War broke out is relevant to the article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am still waiting for you to restore my last edit. Before I make further improvements to this article I want to be sure you are not going to revert them. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I note your interesting response "Why would I do that?" and that you "can't say whether you will revert my future edits in the same way". OK you win...I have written around 2,000 articles now for wikipedia and I have come across a great many editors who are completely committed to the wikipedia project. But never before have I come across anyone who's sole purpose is to revert new material. You may consider my work "excessive detail" but the general principle on wikipedia is that properly sourced material wins. And, in my view, getting the details right is important. I will not seek to advance this article further, notwithstanding all the work I and many others have already put into it, and let's just hope our paths do not cross again. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to you on this one. Useddenim (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are citations in that section. Do you feel they do not cover the added text? - Denimadept (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet as we know it is a global communications network. The term is a proper noun that is ALWAYS capitalized. Local internet networks are NOT capitalized. When "internet" is used as a word for any purpose other than the global network, the word is NOT capitalized.

"Prohibition" is another example of misspelled capitalization. Prohibition in the United States from 1920 to 1933 is a proper noun that is always capitalized. Any other use of the word "prohibition" is not capitalized.

I hope that this clarifies your confusion.

Anthony22 (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Britmax. It may well be that various people use anachronistic misnomers but it is not good form. That is why you will find Harrow, London, not Middlesex and Staines-upon-Thames articles in this encyclopedia. Equally we do not summarise in the manner of a mid-19th century railway entrepeneur the content of the much-more populated area served by the Waterloo to Reading Line and lesser linked lines under the hitherto convenient shorthand (still adopted by some fossils running the SWT website): 'Windsor Lines'. They group them for ease of those passing through Barnes etc under this unfortunate, totally half-baked previous name. One notes to one's horror Windsor has a rival line these days and furthermore one cannot term railways as one used to. I know the subject is vexed but in no way does helping people understand the current economic purpose of various railways by terms which are currently more valid and would be used by the majority of passengers along the route if forced to describe it based on service descriptions etc, lessen the sterling history sections of railway articles. To emphasise previous names in the WP:LEAD section, particularly in flattering quotation marks is rather passé, don't you, on considered reflection, think? Further, as the Reading line is national (sometimes I believe even direct through link to the rest of the network) do you not think stopping tens of miles short of the natural destination of the railway in the WSW direction from the capital is riding on the Royal brand mark just a tad...- Adam37 Talk 10:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without bothering to parse all of the pretentious Baroque prose, I would like to note that ‘archaic’ company names are used in historic articles. Useddenim (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't call them that because we invented the name. We call them that because that is what the railway calls them, and so that is what we call them. Simples. Britmax (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was keeping the infobox more aligned with Template:Infobox officeholder, like with other articles. --Steverci (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You rved my edit to Margaret Thatcher with the comment 'Interesting, but why remove the link to the prayer on the strength if it?'. I did not remove any link or wikilink. If you look at my two combined edits, it should be clearer: [1]. Make Me an Instrument of Your Peace is a redirect to Prayer of Saint Francis, and since my point was trying to correct the wrong impression of authorship by St Francis, I didn't want to give it that title. How about we avoid the redirect with the following?

 Arriving at 10 Downing Street, she said, paraphrasing the prayer ''[[Prayer of Saint Francis|Make Me an Instrument of Your Peace]]'' and wrongly attributing it to [[Francis of Assisi]]:<ref>{{cite news|last=Howse|first=Christopher|title=The real prayer of Francis of Assisi|date=12 Apr 2013|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9991301/The-real-prayer-of-Francis-of-Assisi.html|access-date=7 August 2016|newspaper=Daily Telegraph}}</ref>

--Cedders^tk 09:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted my edit on this railway station. There was a small halt Atlantic Park Hostel Halt on the site but it closed long ago. A completely new enlarged station Southampton Airport was opened by BR in 1966 on the same site. Accordingly it is a new station opened by BR.Steamybrian2 (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see you refused to accept my changes to Downside School Page, It was removed because it is no longer relevant to the school.

Can you please remove these sections as they offer no value for anyone looking at Downside School. They want to know about the school, where it if and what it offers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KathRM (talk • contribs) 15:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did read what you said about the people already knowing about the Boney M. scandal, I know I probably didn't read the article (which I apologize), but since everybody knew that Boney M. was a fraud wouldn't we keep the categories or is there something that contradicts that? Also I'm also wondering if you're an admin or a moderator (I know this sounds weird, but I'm just wondering). --73.240.105.185 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me! I really appreciate it. --73.240.105.185 (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to The Bourne Academy. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have replied to your interesting comment on the talk page of Lady Thatcher's article. It was made in mid August, and you might not be whatching the talk at this moment. I will be pleased to cooperate in any areas I could possibly improve this Wiki. Sam10rc (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I interpreted your rollback of FoCuSandLeArN as a good faith unnoticed mis-click and reverted it. Murph9000 (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Camden Town tube station. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You think people repeatedly making offensive suggestions of 'allegations' of sexual perversion against a subject is constructive use of an article's talk page? --Michig (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "how do you know no trains run that way off peak, for example?"

I checked the Working Time Table, 11am-1pm. [2]

Anothersignalman (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I support Luton, not Wimbledon. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally missed the quotation, and thought that you ment it. I'm truelly sorry, and have appologised at the talk-page aswell. So unless you want to comment my stupid text, You don't have to spend time commentating my misstake. I'm awfully sorry, that I missed the quote-signs. Boeing720 (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In stead of support and discussion on the page of HM, thank you for the offensive revert! --Carolus (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

heya, from what I can remember the model of the station is only about 1 meter long and is mainly used just to store short rakes of coaches but is meant to represent the station, I didn't relies it wasn't in the reference as I was going off my own experience of going to the club. Teabagishere (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC) BTW they deleted the post i made earlier aswell 17:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Teabagishere (talk)[reply]

The troll is right, we are supposed to revert him on sight. Sorry for deleting your posts. --Viennese Waltz 11:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this straight, you think that Kennedy is more commonly referred to as Jack Kennedy than as John F. Kennedy or as JFK? Really? Good God, I give up! Wikipedia really isn't worth bothering with any more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm John. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --John (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Britmax. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Britmax, could you take a second and fix your tweaks to Charlton Athletic's article. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - it just gets under my skin that I'd only just added the {{cn}} tag and was still looking up the claim on Google. Seems fake though after all - MIRA appears to be an amateur racing association, and nobody (even Google) has heard of Mike Wilson. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been discussing with User:DavidAHull nominationg West Somerset Mineral Railway for GA. As you have done significant work on the article I wondered if you had any thought about anything else which is needed to meet the good article criteria or anything else you think needs doing before a nomination?— Rod ^talk 19:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page of Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an IP is removing content which you seemed to have added here. Also, the same IP had previously added to a section signed by you here. Any idea what is going on? I reverted the first (latest change), but the first change has a number of edits in between. Please wp:ping? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Britmax I noticed you deprecated the edit. His reasoning is correct, Hitler didn't force Rommel to shoot himself, rather, he gave him an ultimatumL3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Britmax I see you have reverted an edit I made to the above article. The information shown is incorrect. There is no reference to say that the locomotive is owned by the PRNGRT. PRNGRT do not own any locomotives this is a common misconception. I work for them as an employee of Vale of Rheidol Railway which DOES own the locomotive concerned - as part of our museum collection. I am working on a page for the Vale of Rheidol website to ensure this information. Can you please restore my edit?  Willsmith3  _(Talk) 12:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, the source for what you reverted on the James Hunt page was already there. Its the YouTube video.

Telling people things like that is what Edit summaries are for. Britmax (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would not use my name as everything on this website is open to the public, thanks. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese are people who have ancestry in Taiwan. Many people in Taiwan are not Taiwanese. Most are Chinese.

Taiwan does not claim to be an independent country but the Republic of China or Republic of China on Taiwan. The People's Republic of China does not claim that Taiwan is independent. In fact, they claim they will invade the island if independence is ever declared.

The MH370 article talk page archive 2 does discuss the China issue a little and is not in disagreement with the above.

A compromise might be to put flags. But do not say "Taiwanese". Very complex issue. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Britmax. I am new at Wiki editing discussion customs. I trust here is the right place, etc. I do it in the spirit of friendly common-interest pursuit. Having watched the film twice last night, things are quite fresh in mind regarding it. Anyway, I disagree with the reversion. The Jackal is both portrayed and explicitly described throughout as exceptionally skilled and deadly, etc. The (tacit) idea that he would simply just 'miss' at the climax of the whole plot is misleading to readers who have not seen the film, and is inconsistent with the whole portrayal of the character. Also, the actual visuals of DeGaulle's movement in the shot is portrayed as rather sudden and an unpredictable startlement. The word "suddenly" indicates the fluke nature of the miss. This is not an unimportant point. I therefore believe it is 'needed', ie comprises a substantive improvement. So I will put it back in. I am quite open to and welcome (and would enjoy) further discussion and conversation on this small matter, or on the movie generally. We have a common interest here. Conversation on such can be a civilized and enjoyable and humanizing thing, and need not be a childish petty war, as I've unfortunately discovered it disappointingly so often is on Wiki.

 Cheerio, und Wiederhoren?   :-)   Tommster1 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you realized it, but this was kinda WP:BITE-y. The Help Desk (and Teahouse) is specifically intended for cases of "I don't know where to ask"; your answer was short and on-point with the wikilinks, but what works with regulars may not work with newbies (who may not even know what a talk page is). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following user NaturalEquality you wrote criteria in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Use_of_the_term_.27Dictator.27. I've just asked NaturalEquality if criteria or criterion should be used there. Mcljlm (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This commentary on reverting my revert is downright rude. Firstly, do not make assumptions about what other editors know or do not know. Secondly, pay particular attention to the "Discourse" section which discusses 'genocidal rape'. This means that the cat is not redundant. Make an effort to see what fields any given editor (i.e., myself) actually edit extensively (i.e., genocide broadly construed) before leaving very public brusque edit summaries. For someone who is experienced in one area of Wikipedia, you don't seem to have fully fathomed how these are used. If you intend to extend your editing range to controversial topics, you need to learn how to play nicely (unlike this. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a football follower, you're clearly missing out on the fact that supercup wins in spain are registered as part of the new season (the 2005 supercup win is registered under the 2005/06 season). Check it out if you don't believe me. Paulinho28 (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Britmax. I saw you reverted me regarding my rollback on Luka Modrić. The reason I reverted the IP's edit was because grammatically the should be in place before the proper noun. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Britmax,

I saw that you reverted my edit to the size of the infobox image for the Vladimir Lenin talk page. Would you mind taking a moment to explain the reasons for your change in more detail?

Emiya1980 (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Emiya1980 —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reversed some edits made recently on the Heather Mills page. The reason for contacting you is not to question them but to ask your view of the neutrality of the person who made those edits. I raised this point a while back on the talk pages (now archived) but there was no response. The poster in question is Mlot123 [[3]]. My concern is that the only edits this poster has made have been on the Heather Mills page and the edits amount to significant attempts to rewrite the character and reset the tone of the article. This is not the first time this has happened on the Heather Mills page, there was a similar pattern of edits several years ago, coincidentally at the same time that Heather Mills was complaining publicly about her Wikipedia page. Personally, I have no issue with whatever content is on the page, but I do have a problem with what I perceive to be self-interest at work. As I say, I'd be interested in your views. Thanks, David T Tokyo (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you reverted Template:Croxley Rail Link RDT as I corrected it to show the correct station icons, as per Template:Railway_line_legend  BRIANTIST  (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, goal difference is goals scored minus goals conceded; goal average is when you divide the two. Read the goal difference article to see what I'm talking about. – PeeJay 14:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why some of the stations on this RDT that are shown with full details of both opening and closing dates in the main body article are shown on this RDT and others in the same article are not?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically, but in my experience it is usually an inconsistency which comes with the territory when you have random volunteers doing the job. Britmax (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides those two aforementioned stations, there also is Llanvair station shown in the list of article stations which has the same opening date as the stations near to it, but was a short-lived station evidentially. That means there are now three stations that will not be allowed on the RDT, but seem to be allowed to be entered in the list of stations in the actual article. Logic says to me that if these stations are not to be allowed on the RDT, they should not be allowed on the list of stations in the article. These three stations are either valid or they are not.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to useddenim for ensuring that all the stations on the article have now been shown as entered on the RDT since I notified you above

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the career summary you correctly noted the total number of races for 2017 was not 8. I am not sure (not just Wehrlein, but all racers with this table) this number is entries or races participated. ie entires would be 7 and races would be 6. I am stating this because this is the first time I have seen this type of situation and could not find a rule on how to judge what the correct way to report this would be.

Swagger9000 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, why don't you delete these achievements for Ronaldo too? They have the same sources.Paulinho28 (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem, I suggest you revise any supposed hagiographic edits I've made or create a new section on the talk page. And what on earth do you mean 'hasn't been for years' -- have you suddenly decided that amateur racing no longer exists? Formulaonewiki (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing? Thought as much. Formulaonewiki (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify how this violates the privacy of non notable people and the same information at Sebastian Vettel, Felipe Massa or any other athlete's page does not do that? – Sabbatino (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passing relationships should not be there either, and we may need to have a discussion about when such a relationship becomes notable enough to appear here. Otherwise we end up stalking the first dates of anyone remotely famous. Britmax (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for explanation. And that is indeed a problem as many articles include such information. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I change ", an idea supported by some US republican congressmen but the idea has not been acted upon." to . Some US Republican congressmen supported this idea but never acted upon it." I changed it from passive to active, capitalized Republican, & changed it so it does not end in a preposition. This is indeed better grammar. Please tell me how it changes the meaning of the sentence. Peaceray (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did clarify the sentence. The original statement was vague & maybe I didn't read it right initially, but the solution was more finely crafted editing rather than reverting to the previous grammatical mess.

The television field is supported according to template:infobox person. It says "television Television programmes presented by or closely associated with the subject." Perhaps it is not showing up on your browser, but it's fine on mine. The two programs listed are strongly associated with Pilkington. If the infobox were for comedian, it would be different as that does not have the television field, but he's using infobox person. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just reverted some capitalisation changes I made to this article. Your rationale given is uninformative. I suggest you read the Manual of Style on Capitalization. Seligne (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Minor barnstar

Thank you for making the changes that you did. I joined the Wikipedia community sometime back and Wiki advised me to begin by editing pages, so that I got the basics. They sent me to the "Trolley Problem" page. I edited what I thought would turn out to be correct, but I understand that I need to get better at editing articles. Thank you once again. :) Gokul (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing Manchester Metrolink. There were so many vandalism attacks, I wasn't able to mass-revert them! 14:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That is one of the silliest statements that I've ever seen in my life. Are you trying to tell me that JonBenét died a natural death, committed suicide, or accidentally struck her head?

A great many murders remain unsolved crimes. Take a walk over to the article on Ken Rex McElroy and then tell me that it can't be called a murder. Anthony22 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Britmax. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sixpence (British coin), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sixpence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was never at the top so didn’t receive any love from other editors. I didn’t move it there just to push it. You can check it in the log. Kigelim (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

show me on the english-language map a country called white russia dude had bad grammar, but his changes were OBVIOUSLY correct --[dynamic public ip] 04:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.251.112.198 (talk)

Seriously, and with all due respect, this [4] is pointless. Trolls don't have a sense of humour. Cheers, Yintan  16:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Necklacing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not good at listing them , maybe I will talk about that in talk section of Commencement Bay class. -- Comrade John (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I removed this text, which you added to the RfC I started, as I assumed it was posted in error. ":Yoou are gaming the system by starting another section on the above subject because you don't think you will get your way. Stop it. Britmax (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)" Was it addressed to me? Misunderstandings and metaqueries would best be addressed in some other place than the RfC itself. Assuming your comment was addressed to me, an RfC is not "gaming the system" but following proper procedure to solve a dispute. Please see if you can contribute constructively to it. --John (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I don't wish to do battle over this, but by way of explanation: originally I changed "GP" to "medical doctor" to make the sentence more understandable and reader-friendly. Some readers may not know what a GP is. In my humble opinion, we needn't require the reader to follow a link to decipher an acronym and then bounce back to the Nicol article to continue reading. I think we should try to make Wikipedia reader-friendly. Cordially yours, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For your information; [5] - --Falcadore (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please let the recent edits slide on the HRT Formula 1 Team talk page, as I just wanted to correct some edits that I originally made years ago when I wasn't serious about editing Wikipedia so I think changing them to my current user signature makes sense considering I was the one who made them in the first place, plus the comment that the other user made in one of his replies were unneeded and unprofessional in the context of the question that I asked back then. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this as I understand that I was in the wrong. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You today deleted an article regarding the new train service to Swanage. The reason why I deleted the sentence because it was in the past tense referring to plans made several years ago to introduce a passenger service. A summer passenger train service has now been introduced which has been very widely publicized used by thousands of passengers including myself...! Therefore I cannot understand why you have refused my edit as you need a source for this information.Steamybrian2 (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "delete an article". Removing a section from an article as though the events in it did not happen and only describing the new status in an edit summary is not good enough. The change must be sourced in the article, and the previous status partly included as a previous status that was superseded by the current arrangements. Otherwise periods in the history of events are left out of the record. Because something is not the case now does not mean that it did not happen. Britmax (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which Anonymous Hidden may have been involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I previously edited elvis Presley's page, that President Trump awarded him but it was deleted. Can you reverse that edit so it isn't deleted again. Everythingfixer101 (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Britmax. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reversion. My version displays without any break? What do you see? Whether or which, the Newton Longville halts should not be shown in the RDT as they were never there during the time covered by the article. Please explain. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see the used line stopping in the middle of nowhere for no apparent reason, in a general encyclopedia intended for non specialist railway enthusiasts who will have no idea where it goes after that. Britmax (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

It might have helped just a little to say that the active line changes to inactive without a transition marker. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might have, if that is what I had intended to say. Even a marker would leave the used section and the unused section meeting in the middle of nowhere for no apparent reason. Britmax (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks for the page hep I will wait to see what others have to say before I do anything else Jack90s15 (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your post here to the requested move section. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted so you bring a source that there are not 6 %. After that I will provide you only to show you are so wrong. Rocarus (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Britmax, thank you for correcting my error in the Matt Johnson (singer) article. Admittedly, I do not keep up with names of post-punk bands. I changed the capitalization of "The The" to "the The" based on the spelling in the first sentence of the Matt Johnson article. So, if you are going to make "corrections", please do so throughout the article. Thanks. Woodlot (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's posted in linked article Maigret (2016 TV series).

Hi Britmax, Seems you forgot to explain why you have deleted my addition to MH370 page (in popular culture) on Wikipedia. I provided my explanation on why I have made the addition. I reiterate that the reference is important for many reasons, including public safety. Grateful if you could provide your explanation. Thank you Sincerely, Kenneth — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennethPark1 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read my edit summary and yours. It's all there. Britmax (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just here to discuss your removal of England from his place of birth. Usually the country of birth is included (including the country of birth within the UK). He is classified as English in the introduction so it simply makes sense to include it in the infobox. It doesn't make the section overly long or hard to read. I literally see no reason not to include it. It only adds to the article, it in no way subtracts or states anything false. Here are some of the many examples where it is the norm to include the country of birth in the infobox that corresponds to the persons nationality: William Blake, Francis Bacon, Charli XCX, Jacqui Abbott, Aled Jones, Katherine Jenkins, Calvin Harris. Helper201 (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, not everything can go in the first sentence, but you haven't provided any reaons for keeping pseudoscience out of the first sentence in this particular case. Nor have you tried to respond to the arguments about why it should be there or why it is there in many other articles about pseudoscience.--Brett (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to Glastonbury this year? In preparation for Glastonbury Festival next week a small project has been set up to try to get pictures for acts appearing who don't have photos (or pics are poor/out of date). A list has been started at Wikipedia:Glastonbury 2019. Are there acts on the line up which need pics but aren't included on the list? In addition there has been some discussion about which acts, who do not have articles, would be considered notable enough (in wp terms) to justify one and should be included on the list as red links. If you had any pointers or could contribute to the list that would be great.— Rod ^talk 19:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Natalee Holloway's remains have not been found after 14 years, I think that it is safe to say that her remains were never found and will never be found. Have you ever heard of Jimmy Hoffa (1975) or Judge Crater (1930)? Their remains were also never found.Anthony22 (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not safe to say that at all. Please do not add personal speculation to articles. Britmax (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this edit you reverted vandalism, by someone else, but also reverted my constructive change with the edit summary "Reverted unexplained changes" which is clearly inaccurate. In my view, the sentence I removed is not justified by the sources in the page. I have re-established my edit. If you continue to disagree with this edit please take your reasoning to the article talk page. Thank you. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Britmax! If you and User:91.250.171.150 want to have the generation model codes switched (without any source), maybe you should adjust the incoming links as well:

• Vauxhall Vivaro A
• Opel Vivaro A
• Vauxhall Vivaro B
• Opel Vivaro B
• Nissan NV300
• Vauxhall Vivaro Tour

Because, the way you left it, some of those links are broken, and none of them make sense. ⛐Boivie (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this suggestion, I'm not interested in correcting that article any more, after the incivilities I received in your edit summaries. I prefer working in articles where the other users follow WP:SUMMARYNO. ⛐Boivie (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took our dispute to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Central line. Please leave a comment there if you would. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please take this message in the spirit it's intended - a very light touch piece of advice. Coming of course from the point of view of Assume good faith, some of your edit summaries and comments could be interpreted as aggressive or at the very least having a non-civil tone. A few examples:

• [6] "Ram nareshji, if your intention is to behave this time, welcome back. Please, however, refrain from wasting everybody's time asking inane and pointless questions, particularly those drawn in from elsewhere. You will be banned again if you do that as some of us here do remember you." Also, the edit summary "Welcome back if you behave" doesn't read as incredibly civil.
• [7] We voted the same way on this, but still - this comment is a bit blunt? The edit summary itself could read as impatience/exasperation.
• [8] "Your English needs improving" is rude. 'Not grammatically correct' would be better.

Like I said, I can't force you to take this advice on board, but please take a beat to consider what I have said. I know you aren't intending to be rude, but words can be interpreted that way very easily. Best regards Mark83 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgot this one. [9] "Deal with it" as an edit summary. Mark83 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I will give your remarks some thought. I have been shielding since March 13-ish due to immunosuppression and may be a little more tetchy than usual. Britmax (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Totally understandable to be more tetchy than normal in those circumstances. I hope you are keeping well and that we all get back to some kind of normal soon. Best regards Mark83 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something seemed to go badly wrong with this edit. I have reverted but you may need to reinstate something. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Cumbrian Railways has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nthep (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On June 26, 2020, I edited Greta Thunberg, but you removed this non-notable one. I thought it is true. I am very sorry for that and i will not do that again. Rdp060707 (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone whose IP has been static since 2017 and that has been asked enough times to stop including poorly sourced content on a living person. There is no excuse. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Britmax. In this Teahouse thread, the game that the user is referring to may be Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure, as it appears in a comment on their Talk page. Just 2¢ here.azwaldo (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Britmax (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

To shorten things, how about:

In recognition of Hamilton's achievements, the British Racing Drivers’ Club (BRDC), renamed a portion of the track after him. It is the first time in Silverstone's history that a part of the circuit has been named after any individual

or

In recognition of Hamilton's achievements, the British Racing Drivers’ Club (BRDC), renamed a portion of the track after him. The International Pit Straight, is now called the Hamilton Straight. It is the first time in Silverstone's history that a part of the circuit has been named after any individual

suggestions welcome

thanks

Koppite1 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How About:

In recognition of Hamilton's achievements, the British Racing Drivers’ Club (BRDC) renamed The International Pit Straight at Silverstone "Hamilton Straight". It is the first time in the circuit's history that a part has been named after an individual. Britmax (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, have changed it to mainly what you have suggested. Thanks Koppite1 (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you do realise literally everything in that table is unsourced right? My edits are not only 100% accurate they are also nothing out of the ordinary considering everything in that able is unsourced. Either find sources for stuff in that table or let me make my changes. I won't revert those changes for the time being however I will change the number of stored vehicles on the table as there aren't 43 units down as stored on that table, If I remember correctly there are 36. MJ9674 (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not restore anti-Semitic and Holocaust denying material to my talk page. This material was posted by an editor who is posting this filth in multiple articles from at least two accounts. I'm usually very civil, but anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers are utter scum and I'm not going to mince words. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, why do you find my intention strange? I did my best to not make it seem so, having quoted multiple historians who share the same opinion, which (in my opinion) shows that it's a proposal which should be taken seriously. Lupishor (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it odd that you insist that Romania held such a position, against the majority of evidence to the contrary, when evidence for it is scant at best. Britmax (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you'd find it odd considering that's the pretty much universal perception, but as I've mentioned on the WW2 article's talk page, most Western historians didn't research Romania's role in a detailed way, due to factors like geographical distance. I thought this point, along with others that I've made, would be enough for people not to consider such a proposal as strange. Lupishor (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Britmax, last night my time you reverted one of my edits to the AlphaTauri article, with the summary "Reverted unexplained change. Edit summary please." I found this a bit unusual: I had given an edit summary ("Corrections"), which I understand is very brief, but this was not a controversial edit by any means and should have been understood by most editors of this article. The table in its prior state was incorrect and only minor changes were required to correct it, and in my opinion this does not require a detailed edit summary. I don't see what was achieved and it resulted in incorrect information remaining in the table overnight when the correct information was very easily verified by visiting the 2021 or combined AT01/AT02 articles (which were both linked in the table). Summaries alone are not grounds to revert edits, and edit summaries are not compulsory. I'm not aiming to challenge you or start any sort of argument, but I would like to let you know that I don't believe reverting this edit was a productive step to take. Thanks,
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add Category:Railway stations opened in Great Britain in 2021 in that final section, as Bow Street station reopened (albeit on a different station site) on Sunday, 14 February 2021. It did appear, but only appears in red type. Can you assist in resolving this matter, please.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to take out both sections in this edit [10]? Removing the first one is absolutely fine of course. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just an observation about your recent edit in this article. While your version reads better, it is likely that it was a practical impossibility to introduce broad gauge tracks into an existing standard gauge station, there wouldn’t be space between the platforms. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Britmax. You have new messages at Talk:Astrology#First_sentence_should_include_widely_considered_to_be.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

See the lead HMS Repulse (1916) of the article. Revert it. Then another user will keep reverting.

BlueD954 (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello. why did you revert my edit i add it from fawiki Ax777 (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have added the names of several people as influences with no references or explanation as to why you think they are. Britmax (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Britmax,

there are lists of nuclear accidents at Wikipedia, eg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll

SL/1 was 1961, Windscale and Kyshtym were earlier in 1957. The criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia is verifiability; these disasters' articles are already supported by citations.

Oops, sorry; I forgot to sign Clark42 (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC) .......[reply]

I've restored my revisions. Please look at them carefully before removing them again, they are verifiable and improve the article. Regarding the section I removed: it's citation, John McCarthy's personal notes on sustainability at http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html is not a particularly authoritative source, and contradicts itself regarding waste. Clark42 (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: My remark "This is a good article"?? was meant to be a joke. Actually I think it is a pretty good article, but within minutes of arriving at the page I encountered a contradiction based on a poor citation, a glaring error, and information irrelevant to the subsection it was in. I hope you approve of my edits this time. Clark42 (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching full race in F1TV archives. Every modification is based on them. But, I cannot add link videos.

Have you read that policy? Perhaps you haven't and you always want to be right. I'm not going to contest your edit, as it seems ridiculous to me to contest something on this site. But know you are wrong. Best wishes. CoryGlee (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghislaine Maxwell is no longer a socialite - she is now an inmate

"Britmax", you keep reverting "former" socialite. Ghislaine is now an inmate, not a socialite. She does not get invited anywhere. You need to include links to where she is being invited to social events. She doesn't get any invitations. She is a pariah. Nobody will touch her. So, Britmax, start including links if you want to delete "former" socialite. No doubt, you consider Jeffrey Epstein to be "an American socialite" - even though he is dead and was a total pariah for being a pedophile. Ghislaine Maxwell is also a complete pariah for being accused of organising Epstein pedophilia. I am curious why you don't like anything negative said about these people. Friends? You one yourself???Betathetapi545 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care whether what is said is positive or not, but if you want to make changes they need to be cited. "Socialite" is a description of her notability and has not ceased to be valid because you say so. And using sources used from another article is still using Wikipedia as its own source, which is not reliable as it can set up a circular reference per WP:CIRCULAR.Britmax (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've given Betathetapi545 a 72 hour block for their breach of the no personal attacks policy in their recent edit comments on the Ghislaine Maxwell article. If they give you any more trouble, please contact me or any other administrator, and help will be given. I've redacted the comments in question. -- The Anome (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure that you are correcting mistakes properly! Failure to do so will lead to misscommunication — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtishT20 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure that you read the edits properly! I was creating an article not editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtishT20 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, you still are not signing your posts with four tildes (4x~), and your leaving an Edit summary will still give rise to fewer misunderstandings, whatever you are trying to do. Britmax (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Miles (musician), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. TJMSmith (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the hyphen is needed, see https://ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/CMS_list.pdf under "noun + gerund" used as an adjective phrase --黄雨伞 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SYR Blackburn Valley Line has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Britmax - I protected your page for three days because of that LTA. If you'd like it lifted earlier just let me know. All the best -- Antandrus (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you reverted my change on Amin al-Husseini. I'm not sure I fully understand your revert summary. In the sentence "The Islamic Central Institute gave the Muslims in Germany institutional ties to the "Third Reich".", I changed "Third Reich" to "Nazi Germany", as this is a synonym, and I removed the quotes that would have implied it was a direct quote. In the second sentence, I did not change a sourced direct quote: the phrase "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" is usually presented (in both German and English) with quotes to distance the reader, as it needs to be critically understood as Nazi Germany's so-called "Final Solution". Does this address your objections in the edit summary?-Ich (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...here: no, I just took out the blunting words about "sir". Why reverse without discussing? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You changed a quote. The new version is no longer what was said. Changing that back does not need discussion: changing it in the first place does. Britmax (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The quote was only edited to remove the distracting "sir" part. Nothing was added. This didn't change the important critique one bit, except to make it more effective. We'll have to continue in the article's talk page now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you change a quote, it is beholden on you to explain why, at least with an edit summary. It is not up to you to change the words of others, even in the slightest way, without an explanation. If you do so, I will remove the change until you do. "This didn't change the important critique one bit, except to make it more effective." This means "it didn't changes the quote, except where it did". Britmax (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sad that you wrote that, having not seen (?) and read my clear edit summaries. And confusing. These two quotes say essentially the same thing (1) "The inexpensive brown rotten bananas could not be eaten according to her." (2) "[Her opinion was that] the ... rotten bananas could not be eaten." Seems like you just don't want to understand what I mean and have meant all along. In any case, we're doing this here now, not on your talk page. I'm sorry I came here with it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have now repeatedly accused me of not explaining a change I made in an edit summary. On this page and again here. I never do that. These accusations are patently false. It is hard to find good faith in your behavior in making false accusations like that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent initiation of a deeply engaging conversation (that I stumbled upon too late it seems) on the Swastika page. That page needs a lot of work to not be too Euro-centric, and I am always pleased to see others stepping up and helping in that endeavor. Thank you, and enjoy this "pie". ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 14:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected this page for four days. Let me know if you want that reverted, or if the trouble continues after that and further action is needed. JBW (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited MV Caledonia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aliaga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncing this back to you as I'm not sure what article it belongs in; I found it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2008, 3#Southport. Useddenim (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a discusion, make your case there. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]