User talk:64.238.172.212

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Per: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages

Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users.

THEREFORE, WHEN I REMOVE COMMENTS ON THIS PAGE PLEASE DO NOT RE-ADD THEM.


Contents

[edit] March 2008

[edit] California Cuisine

The addition has been sourced. --evrik (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thus far I believe you have only sourced facts for "Fusion cuisine is accepted and popular in California" and perhaps "openness to new eating experiences" but I believe most people are open to new eating experience, even if they do not live in California (what defines a "Californian" BTW? Someone born there? Someone who current lives there? Someone who has lived there, but does not currently reside in California? The Governator was born in Austria... is he considered a "Californian?" The article does not state he is.64.238.172.212 (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why don't you register as a user? This anon ip stuff gets old. If you don't like the sentence, why don't you propose an alternate? --evrik (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Havarti

Was that it? Two or three revisions of the word "cheese," used correctly? Basketball110 02:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistake, sorry. Thanks for the un-do. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: WHY

I have reveiwed your edits and they appear to be legitimate and for that I appologise. At first glance, your edits appeared to have been an attempt to hide the fact that you were warned. You may wish to consider archiving your talkpage if you ever have an account instead of just removing it. However, please be more calm on your comments and try to assume good faith.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V

I believe you are misinterpreting the verification policy. Verification means that a source needs to be cited that backs up the statement. This source might be on the web that we can link to or it might not. A scholarly journal, magazine article, newspaper articles, books, etc. can be cited to veryify something whether it is posted somewhere on the web or not. If wikipedia only used linkable citations it would be a very incomplete encyclopedia. If you still question what I'm saying you can inquire about it on the WP:V talk page. Thanks. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

re: I think your mixing up the link with the source. The source is the newspaper article. There is a link because that is the standard way to source in most cases which is probably improperly done in this case. The verification of this source would be citing the date and title and author of the article with no link. You could go find this article in the newspaper's archives to get your verification. This would take longer than having a direct link but you could still obtain said article. By the way, I'm not really editing this article but once mentioned it on the talk page because the writer mentioned this wikipedia article and some of the things he thought were incomplete about the article. Someone else inserted the source into the article who was working on it. MrMurph101 (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it's always good to double check sources and no one can be faulted for that which is a good thing. You may also want to check out WP:DEADLINK to clarify some things. I think you should really start your own account and be able to do more with it but if you don't that's cool too. Good luck. MrMurph101 (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Overdraft. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. This being said, you for using the edit summary function this time AirOdyssey (Talk) 02:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What part do you consider NPOV 64.238.172.212 (talk)
Thanks for responding. In this edit, the expression "unjust enrichment" appears to represent the author's opinion only and does not appear to be supported by other facts. Feel free to further discuss the article's neutrality on the talk page. AirOdyssey (Talk) 02:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If the bank makes an error "in your favour" you have been unjustly enriched. Per the article Unjust enrichment is a legal term in English law and in several other jurisdictions, denoting a particular type of causative event in which one party is unjustly enriched at the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises, regardless of liability for wrongdoing. I think that is pretty relevant and not at all bias. If the bank adds $1000 to your account that should not have been then you have been unjustly enriched and are responsible to pay it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.172.212 (talk)
Thanks for the tip. This being said, please do not direct attack to other editors as you did on your edit summary for Overdraft. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. AirOdyssey (Talk) 03:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Messages

Sorry about that. Next time though please be civil. Thanks LegoKontribsTalkM 19:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. My intention was not to be a "wannabe admin" like you called me, 64.238.172.212. AirOdyssey (Talk) 01:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
And also, please assume good faith. LegoKontribsTalkM 03:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motorola V60s

You didn't finish the Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion for Motorola V60s. If I'm not mistaken, anonymous users can't finish AfDs. I fixed it for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)