User talk:69.138.229.236

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop your nonsense edits. Fuzheado | Talk 14:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The reason I reverted the MSNBC edit is because nearly every one of your edits has been wrong, either intentionally incorrect or so obscure they score zero Google hits - Rush Limbaugh dating Daryn Kagan, unheard of Brady Bunch albums, Honeymooners being based on father in law, Ray Kroc's book, and the list goes on. Therefore, unless you provide concrete proof for your edits, they are going to be reverted. Please feel free to try to convince me otherwise. Cheers. Fuzheado | Talk 23:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you do not stop contributing unverifiable random nonsense to articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Mark 02:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the statistic because it looks, for all intents and purposes, like a made-up fact inserted in the Wikipedia article as a test, as encouraged by an article about us currently on the Slashdot website. If this is not the case, and the factoid was genuine, I apologise wholeheartedly. Could you tell us from where you are quoting that statistic, so that it can be restored if genuine? - Mark 02:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not the fact (and my usage of the word 'factoid') was correct, the statistic itself would not appear to be notable enough to remain in the article in its original form. Are you adding these statistics to every page in the Top 100 Advertisers? - Mark 02:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I had strong reason to doubt the factualness of your edits. As a result, I removed them from the articles in question, so that they could be verified before being allowed to remain. I'm sure you would agree it would be courting disaster to leave all questionable edits within articles while being verified. Sorry for being so slow in doing this, but I am neither an employee of Wikipedia, nor am I a slave to it. If the speed of my verification is not sufficient, then I suggest you try your hand at editing Wikinfo, a free wiki-based encyclopedia where the truth never gets in the way of a good story. - Mark 00:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're an odd one, 69.138.229.236. Early edits were clearly nonsense and incorrect; then they moved to obscure but partially true; then to obscure, provably true but placed in odd context within the article. Not sure what to make of the progression. Fuzheado | Talk 05:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced all your edits have been in good faith - Ann Curry going to University of Hawaii? Churchill writing about "The Coming Age of Fast Food"? These type of things should be easily found on the Internet if true. Therefore, your edits are put through extra scrutiny, which means you should provide clear citations for your edits. Care to explain those questionable edits? Fuzheado | Talk 22:02, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Does that mean you still contend that Churchill wrote about "The Coming Age of Fast Food?" Fuzheado | Talk 01:33, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, if all you use to verify citations is the web, I feel sorry for all of the info not on the web. What other sources do you use? It does not mean that everything can be found on the Web, but it certainly beats "because I said so" which is all you've provided in your edits. Churchill is a well known enough figure in history that his most prominent career highlights can be found on Web sites and Google, and predicting the global impact of McDonald's Happy Meals is not one of them. Fuzheado | Talk 01:39, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Current situation

Hello. Your edits to Washington, DC, FOX News and Hawaii have been restored, as they have been verified. I apologise for reverting those edits. However, your edits to England and August 9 were incorrect. The highest temperature ever recorded in England was 38.5C in Brogdale, Kent, on August 10. I am going to assume the error in the date was made in good faith, and was not an attempt to insert a 'subtle' vandalism into Wikipedia. I have restored the corrected facts to England and August 10. I hope I have not inconvenienced you too much. - Mark 07:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is getting to the size now that some sort of review process will become necessary. When the encyclopedia is prepared for its CD or print release (processes are being decided for those projects now) there will be some sort of review procedure implemented. - Mark 01:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)