Description

A project for the county of Essex, England

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Chris 05:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Maybe you could try Category:Wikipedians from Essex and also place notices e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject England. Simply south (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but regarding this edit: you do not unilaterally decide to add or change a genre. One voice in a discussion is not consensus. If you can't provide a reliable source don't make the change. Radiopathy •talk• 00:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Curragh Incident‎ a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please study the reason behind wp:Commonname, Ganga is an exception to the rule, and this exception is not based on facts. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Steve Hoffman (audio engineer). Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.

• stereocentral.tv: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.stereocentral.tv

See also WP:COI in case it might apply. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I'm fed up with drive by editors making unexplained changes. With no edit summary I can't find the consensus, can I?

I'm happy to defend and discuss my recent changes to Renault F1. talk over here? Tubefurnace (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right. I don't particularly agree with the logic that because we don't refer to Anglo-Canadians (Britanno-Canadians?) we don't refer to French-Canadians. (Google kind of backs me up on this).

However, I do agree that it's nationality (not ethnicity) that's the most relevant thing right up front in the lead. As you can see, I had doubts as soon as I made the edit. Thanks for the note. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly attempts to resolve the problem through discussion with the user have failed, and at least three separate users have reverted his changes. Is it time for ANI, do you think, or is there an intermediate venue? (I mean, RfC or EA/R, in theory, but this is taking place across a number of articles.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your compromise on Shackleton and his 'nationality' makes sense. Hope that's an end of it and no-one feels a need to invent any more new nationalities. --Flexdream (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert this edit. However objectionable the actions of this editor may be, he has the right to remove comments from his talk page. There are a few administrative notices that may not be blanked, the specifics of which are explained in WP:BLANKING, but ordinary comments are not covered by this. Favonian (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

because it does not create an article named, medieval warfare does not explain much, this article discusses a generalized, but not a lot of English. Greetings--190.234.209.127 (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jordan Grand Prix, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bjmullan (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - {{uw-npov2}}

• Based on the discussion on my talk page, it is apparent that this user was inadvertently restoring vandalism while trying to make a constructive edit, which was my reason for reverting and warning. As it is now clear it was a good faith edit, I am removing the warning. Monty₈₄₅ 19:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jon. My understanding is that the constructor name displayed above the infobox should match the way it's written throughout the rest of the encyclopedia (e.g. in the "Constructor" column of race results tables), which is not necessarily the same as how it appears on the official FIA entry list. But I must confess I couldn't find that written down anywhere. So feel free to start a discussion at WT:F1 if you like. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be reminded that per WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES, the article Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland is under a 1RR restriction, which you have already broken. Please don't revert further and discuss the issue on the talk page. StrPby (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Carlingford Lough falls under WP:1RR per the notice at the top of the Article Talk page. All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonchapple. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Renault, the former Renault works team, is usually called Renault and the page about it here is named accordingly. Team Lotus, which was Lotus Racing last year, is usually called Lotus. Lotus Renault can refer to both teams. If you want to redirect that one again, please discuss it first. Google shouldn't count above Wikipedia consensus, should it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.46.170 (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia consensus? Read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and honestly tell me you think a significant number of people wanting Tony Fernandes's team are going to be searching for "Lotus Renault". No one calls the new Team Lotus Lotus Renault. And even if a few stragglers did, there's still a hatnote at the Lotus Renault GP page, so everyone's a winner. JonChapple^Talk 22:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Talk:Lotus Renault so we can establish a consensus. I invite to you to express your views there. DH85868993 (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how the sentence that states that County Londonderry or County Derry is named after Londonderry or Derry adds anything to the article? Mo ainm~Talk 22:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you restored it back to the way I did originally. Mo ainm~Talk 12:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jon. Yes, the convention is to link to the article as a whole, rather than a subsection. This is consistent with the convention for other companies which have been both constructors and engine suppliers (Renault, Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, etc). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Article County Londonderry falls under WP:1RR per the notice at the top of the Article Talk page. All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. You have violated this rule with your edits here, here and here and I'd ask that you self revert or you will be reported. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 12:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.--Domer48_'fenian' 12:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]