User talk:67.185.88.176

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for experimenting with the page Fred G. Meyer on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. --18:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You Are In Violation of 3RR

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Fred Meyer. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Meyer: Reversion

I was asked to explain my reversion of your addition to the Fred Meyer article. That addition was composed of four parts.

  • First, you claimed Fred G. Meyer to be a member of the Rosicrucian Order etc., providing sources. I won't discuss the validity of the sources here, but that clearly concerns Fred G. Meyer himself, not the stores, unless you can provide a source that states his business was influenced by his philosophical leanings.
  • Next, you elaborated on the rosicrucian connection to Hitler. As far as I can see, the main connection to Fred Meyer was that both Nazism and the stores use the colours red, white and black, which is a rather weak link. No source was provided that the store logo may have been influenced by its Founder's rosicrucian connections. Hitler's connection to the rosicrucians was sourced (again I won't discuss the quality of the sources), but was unrelated to the stores.
  • Thirdly, you claimed that the layout of racks gives a swastika and that green freight carts are nicknamed "U-Boats", but this, the part most relevant for the stores, was still unsourced.
  • Finally, the "Notes" part could have been more fitting for the talk page, but definitely does not belong into the article proper.

Thus, your additions were either unrelated to the stores or unsourced. By the way, the version where you described your addition as "your research" shows another problem: Even if it is true, original research is in principle unsuited for Wikipedia. I hope that answers your question. Yours, Huon 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I second Huon's comments, and I would like to add the following:

  • In your “Notes” paragraph you said, “The afforementioned information is legitimate enough to warrant a discussion which is the purpose of Wikipedia. ... If you have a counter-argument then please add that rather than Vandalize the right to free speech that is supported by facts.” This comment shows a mistaken idea of the purpose of Wikipedia. See the official policy article, What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is an encyclpedia: It is not a forum for discussion, nor a place to exercise free speech.
  • As Huon pointed out, official Wikipedia policy permits No original research. This policy means that articles may not contain opinions which have not been published elsewhere by a reputable source. Another official policy is Neutral point of view. This policy means that even if you find a controversial opinion published elsewhere, you must present both sides fairly, so that a reader is not able to tell which side the editor prefers. --teb728 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/7/2E/User_talk%7E67.185.88.176.html"