User talk:Editadam

I don't understand why you think that the word "who" isn't needed here. Without it the sentence starts "However, if a driver fails to set an appropriate lap time can show cause for his inclusion in the race". Surely it should be "However, if a driver who fails to set an appropriate lap time can show cause for his inclusion in the race?" Britmax (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I read the sentence wrong. I reverted back to your edit. Thanks for saying something. Editadam 20:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, these things happen. I wish it was the worst mistake I'd ever made. Britmax (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editadam. I have transferred your question about Podiums from Talk:Formula One to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Podiums. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Editadam 22:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Editadam. In case you didn't realise it, the link you include in your signature on talk pages (e.g. here) doesn't link to your userpage; it links to a (non-existent) article called "Editadam". To make it link to your userpage, the link should be [[User:Editadam|Editadam]] instead of [[Editadam]]. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted some of your edits to 2011 Indian Grand Prix - namely, your edit claiming that Timo Glock had been given permission to race by the stewards, which had no source to support it, and your removal of the 107% time from the qualifying table, which is something that has been included on every race page this year. If you are going to make edits in future, please add sources supporting them; likewise, if you are going to remove content (especially content that is present on other pages), please dicuss it first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the tip about the Glock incident, and i just forgot about leaving the 107% row in there. Editadam 00:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The decent points you have to make, and your desire to encourage Jonathan, are rather undermined by sarcastic comments like As far as I checked, 2 > 1. There is a lack of consistency between telling him You can stand for your opinion, and discarding his opinion as "a nonvalid point". Using capitals excessively comes across as shouting, and is poor netiquette. Happy wikiing, but tread carefully. Kevin McE (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I offended you, but in the some other sections of Wikipedia, these capital letters and trying to find a delicate balance between stating your opinion and accepting that you are outnumbered in that opinion (kind of contradicting) are more frequent. In this case however, I guess I did go a little overboard. It is difficult however to encourage and discourage someone at the same time. Cheers. Editadam 01:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KevinMcE and Editadam. I didn't perceive Editadams opinion as rude, instead I see it as hint that I can express my opinion, but have to accept it when the majority does not agree. As for that "keep reverting" thing, I already explained in the talk why I mistakenly did not take the first edit by KevinMcE serious. Probably I was editing to many nonsense and vandalism contributions in the time prior to that incident and didn't pay good attention to KevinMcEs argument, and therefore dismissed his points to quick, but I have to stress that this was not a bad intention or a willingness for edit warring, but the result of a misunderstanding. When I understood that this is a point that I have to argue for consensus, I did so (or at least tried^^) on the talk page. Greetings, Jon. Jonathan0007 (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2013 Formula One season, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that veteran NASCAR promoter Humpy Wheeler is an advisor to the Grand Prix of America, a Formula One race to be run in New Jersey (planned track layout pictured) starting in 2013? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've reverted your edits on the 2014 season page, the one that listed McLaren as using "Mercedes or Honda" engines. The reason for this is that I read over the reference you supplied, and nobody from McLaren, Honda or Mercedes was actually quoted in it. It's been a long-established practice within the F1 editors to only accept references where someone is named and quoted. The reason for this is that rumours tend to take hold pretty quickly, and the only way to know whether something is true or not is if a person who is in a position to know about the subject comments on it. So, for the McLaren/Honda references to be acceptable, they would probably need someone like Martin Whitmarsh saying "Yes, we will switch to Honda in 2014". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted Xavier Perrot from List of Formula One drivers, because Perrot drove formula 2 car. OK. Then why on the list there are other drivers who was driving only formula 2 cars?

• François Picard, Tom Bridger, Robert La Caze and André Guelfi (1958 Moroccan Grand Prix)
• Christian Goethals (1958 German Grand Prix)
• Dick Gibson (1957 and 1958 German Grand Prix)

Damian27 (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good point. The policy on this issue has always been: In order for a driver to be included in the list, they are supposed to have at least one entry as a formula one driver (it is not called the list of formula two drivers). However, these drivers have been included. I believe these other drivers need to be deleted, but I am going to re-post this discussion on the talk page. Editadam 12:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP

Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 IndyCar Series season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC. 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) 09:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Can you please help find the source for the overtaking data on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_race_records

Please respond on my e-mail: degtevis@gmail.com

Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonim1980 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 May 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) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Editadam. 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]