BRMYX23

Welcome!

Hello, BRMYX23, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! --VViking_TalkEdits 21:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

Hi BRMYX23! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia: it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Onorem (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi BRMYX23! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Marriage in the United States several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Marriage in the United States, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

Hello, I'm Greyjoy. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. Thanks. Greyjoy ^talk 05:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

Hi BRMYX23! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Education in England and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Russel Brand

I have reverted this edit because that is not what the source says. Please check the source. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

My main reason was just a technical one - it is referring to the 2026 interview but had been inserted into the pre-2023 slot - I switched the link - and accounted for what was established - In context of the 2026 interview with Megan Kelly, Brand was asked directly about the relationship with the 16-year-old that was established in the Channel 4 documentary, he admitted to the relationship with that individual - who as with all of the women who came forward is currently unnamed (though given that fact unnamed could be taken out?) - but re-iterated nothing illegal (ie. involving criminal wrongdoing) had taken place - Most of what was written existed before I came to the page so isn't me - I just believe it belongs in Reactions and Aftermath accounting for the info between the two over pre-2023 allegations which 2026 responses are not relevant to BRMYX23 (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, you did it again. Please do not do that. If you editwar you get blocked. He admitted to having sex, not to having a relationship. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

See WP:EDITWAR. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok well that's a simple thing to correct and I can do that and move to the reactions and aftermath section BRMYX23 (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

That being said in the original documentary she alleged a relationship spanning over a period of time - https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/russell-brand-acknowledges-past-relationship-with-16-year-old-ahead-of-upcoming-trial (it has been framed that way elsewhere too) - but given that is at minimum what he admitted to - I can just re-frame things that way to say 'sex with' instead of 'relationship' if that makes things easier for all parties involved BRMYX23 (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, we have to be a bit careful with such things. Because the two sources in that bit of text say "sex" we can't turn it into a relationship (because that could make it seem bigger than it was, or more innocent, because a relationship can also mean love letters and hand holding). Its probably a good idea to see how reliable sources describe it, and then follow those. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah no I was more just moving the details given it had been established by that point - Details are admittedly murky between the 2023 documentary and the 2026 interview - Slept with (as Russell states) could imply a one-night stand, though what she alleged it would seem they were in a short-term relationship over a period of a month or so which was sexual (my original edit, I felt that could be inferred) - The BBC had used relationship too in initial reporting - Sexual relationship could work? BRMYX23 (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

could be - would be - typo BRMYX23 (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I had a quick look at some sources and most appear to focus on sex, not a relationship. And not just the Daily Mail, also The Guardian. Which is perhaps not surprising in the context of the other allegations. What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Moving the bit of text to a more appropriate location is not objectionable, but changing sex to relationship is. Polygnotus (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

She'd said she'd been in a relationship with him for a couple of months in the Channel 4 documentary (In Plain Sight, at 22:58) - This was also corroborated by sources close to her too (according to Channel 4) - He'd said (in response to being asked by Megan Kelly specifically about the sexual assault claims made by her), 'I did sleep with a 16-year-old, when I was 30' but had inferred the assault allegations (non-consensual sex) were incorrect and openly said all his behavior was 'legal' - given he said slept with I could settle on that for the time being - It wasn't my main purpose for making the edit to begin with - Though I am just trying to think of a good resolve, the BBC confirmed through speaking to Alice in 2023 that they'd been in a relationship for three months (which had according to her involved abuse) - BRMYX23 (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Openly alleged is what I meant to say on Brand's part BRMYX23 (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)