User talk:B. Fairbairn

October 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Jack Miller (motorcyclist), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 16:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not original research. Data straight from Races by year. Shows Jack's form for each Grand Prix e.g. he does well in France, poorly in Italy and is improving over time in San Marino.
B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Results by Grand Prix tables

Could you please stop adding those? Do we really need them? Can't readers get that information by themselves by reading and scrolling through the "Races by year" table? It's as if you're making the readers illiterate by spoon-feeding them every possible information, which they could read on their own. Also, there's a current discussion at Talk:Jack Miller (motorcyclist), but you keep on adding these tables without even participating there. It's getting disruptive already. There are many issues with those tables that you add.

WP:OR: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." You said it yourself: you made the table straight from the "races by year" table. No references provided. If you could provide one, then we could remove original research as one of the issues.
WP:FANCRUFT: "Fancruft is a term sometimes used on Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is important only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." I could argue that what's important to the average reader is only the "races by year" table, because that includes the championship points and standings in a year, and basically race results per year. There's a reason why Formula 1 don't have these "races by grand prix" tables you know? And here you are, adding those tables to MotoGP articles.
WP:TRIVIA: Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information. If we accept adding those tables, then in the future, other editors might add "Results by circuit" or "Grands Prix by race finishing position". It would never stop. Let's just stick with the most important info, and that is list every Grand Prix result per year, because that's how readers will intuitively find results, year by year, not Grand Prix by Grand Prix.

I suggest that you please communicate and discuss first before re-adding those tables (if there is a consensus to add them though). Thanks. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 16:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should leave the new tables alone and eventually someone else will either agree with you or think it's a cracking idea and apply the tables to all MotoGP riders.
Stop taking a new idea as a personal attack.

The wisest action to take (if your ego allows) is to leave the tables as is... for now. Eventually - after maybe a few weeks, maybe a couple of months - I'll get bored and you can go through and delete the tables that offend you with gusto :-) B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see why you're blocked before numerous times. You edit articles while not seeming to care about Wikipedia guidelines; you didn't even address the guidelines that I mentioned above. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 16:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid option. You can't just keep adding things over and over again - that goes against the way things work on Wikipedia and could potentially lead to a ban if it went all the way to arbitration. Let's try to avoid that. Engr. Smitty has suggested that these tables go against several Wikipedia policies. If you disagree, then that's fine, but we need to try and resolve the impasse. Do you have a reason as to why these tables don't violate the policies? Readro (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:BLOATED springs to mind.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The table is simply to allow easy perusal of rider results per grand prix over career. For each rider the data is straight from the 'Races by year' table.
It seems only one person has been offended and has initiated an edit war claiming principally that the table has no references - forgetting the data is straight from existing tables and is simply a reformat.
Yes you can ascertain a rider's form over his/her career using the 'Races by year' table but the races are ordered by date and it's not straightforward. I have simply taken existing data and presented it in a different format.
Is there some way in which viewers' opinions on the matter can be measured? Viewers, not self-appointed controllers.

Regardless of what people reading the article think, Wikipedia still has policies that need to be adhered to. Do you believe that your tables are, or are not in violation of the policies mentioned above? Readro (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message to B. Fairbairn

Please get consensus for these removals first, you are not entitled to do them across a large number of articles unilaterally without a clear reason grounded in site policy. Thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 13:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello! I'm NebY. Your recent edit(s) to the page Innocent Victims appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. 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. NebY (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected title. Diana was never a princess in her own name, she was Diana, Princess of Wales. The media almost always got it wrong. For reference try searching for Princess Diana. The page shows the correct title. B. Fairbairn (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not correct quotations. We do not change what someone said to what we think he should have said. See MOS:PMC but also remember Wikipedia's fundamental policy, WP:VERIFIABILITY. NebY (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative is too remove ridiculous, foul-mouthed quote from irrelevant movie. B. Fairbairn (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Innocent Victims. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. NebY (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Diana, Princess of Wales: 'Though popularly referred to as "Princess Diana", that style is incorrect and one she never held officially.' B. Fairbairn (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not "correct" quotations – do not change what someone said to what you think he should have said. See MOS:PMC but also remember Wikipedia's fundamental policy, WP:VERIFIABILITY. NebY (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]