Talk:Kwik Save

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Branding

Can someone please merge the commented-out paragraph at the start of the branding section? I took it from the kwiksave article when I merged the two, but it seems slightly contradictory to what is already there, and I'd prefer someone more knowledgeable to sort it out. Thank you. Fourohfour 19:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No pricing

When Kwik Save opened in the early 1980's there were no prices on the goods. Staff had to remember the (limited) range —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.27.148 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Lawsonrob's tag removal

See also User_talk:Lawsonrob; "Unexplained removal of "citation" tags".

Lawsonrob persists in removing "citation needed" and "original research?" inline tags without explanation (see here and here). It appears to be his own material that he is removing them from.

In my experience, where tags were originally added in good faith (and have a reasonable case), and are persistently removed without resolving the issue (which would be providing a reference in this case) or giving any other explanation, this is generally considered vandalism.

Further, Lawsonrob appears to be acting in bad faith. I sent a message via his talk page (see here) explaining why I considered his removal of the tags unacceptable and how this may be treated as vandalism if it continues.

Not only did he remove the tags again- without proper explanation- but also has tried to label *my* edit as vandalism- something he didn't do before, and probably as a result of my message.

Fourohfour 11:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional: Listed at Wikipedia:Third_opinion. Fourohfour 11:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion: It is clear that Lawsonrob should discuss the matter here rather than removing the tags again. Please avoid edit warring. Grouse 11:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it deeply suspicious that these tags were removed again by an anonymous editor in his/her "first" two contributions (out of three to date). Not the kind of thing a newbie would do. Too much of a coincidence? Fourohfour 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I should add to my last edit summary that things that "could be argued" and consequent "theories" are original research unless you can cite a reliable source that makes this argument or fleshes out this theory. Grouse 12:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for Pete's sake, just take the thing out. It was an attempt to explain the decline of the Kwik Save chain, which has been there for many months without comment or complaint. There is, so far as I have been able to discern, no actual research on this, so I was attempting to put forward a considered analysis of the changing shopping habits and market conditions that led to the decline of the Kwik Save brand. Quite frankly, your overly zealous imposition of provisos makes the whole article look ridiculous, so for the sake of not really caring that much about Kwik Save, let's just take it out. Anything to spare me from another 10 pars of whinging blather in my discussion page. lawsonrob 12:28, 8 December 2006

OK, I've taken it out. For future reference, putting forward your own "considered analysis" of something is exactly what is prohibited by Wikipedia's no original research policy. If you want to avoid discussion on your user talk page, then please discuss contentious edits on the article talk page. Grouse 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Incredible. You've been editing Wikipedia for almost a year, and hadn't heard of one of its most basic rules?! And not only were you removing tags without knowing what they meant, but the information was straight in front of you(!!); they linked directly to the "No original research" page!

FWIW, I found your analysis plausible, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it, and if you weren't so blinkered you'd have realised why a long time ago.

Overly zealous? Many people would have said "probably original research, no references showing otherwise" and (justifiably) removed it straight away. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and the chance to back up what you were saying, so spare me the self-pitying ignorance. Fourohfour 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)