User talk:71.93.222.223

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. For one thing, if you edit without a username, your IP address (71.93.222.223) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Maelwys (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Kitchen Nightmares, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Edokter • Talk • 14:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In what way is it not neutral?

Are you saying that it wasn't the plumber's van? Or that the person who dropped the chicken wing was a full time employees?

I would like you to consider a truce on this issue so I or others can expand the section.

I'd also like you to consider referring this matter to another admin or editor.

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kitchen Nightmares. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Collectonian (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I've posted my thoughts on the matter at Talk:Kitchen Nightmares. I'd love to find a middle-ground, since some of that information was good stuff. Have a look and let me know what you think. Thanks, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted a response as well - I have said, the solution is for you (or someone else) to reinstate the section so it can be expanded...

As the Guidelines say...what is the hurry here in removal?

My main thought with the haste issue is that the criticism section could (narrowly) be construed as claiming malfeasance or deception on the part of the producers, which could trigger concerns under the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Beyond that, I'd note that - since the history of the page includes the full version of what I removed - anyone could take the text and work on it before reposting a version, so what hurry is there to re-add the disputed section? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia's guidelines on haste? They refer to removal.

And there are published claims of deception on the part of the producers all over....have you researched this?

And - I CAN'T POST A NEW SECTION - I've been WARNED, dude. That is the issue.

This is really stupid.

I agree with ZZ above. See also WP:V. "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." This was a new addition to the article and totally unsourced. I and other editors challenge it. It can always be put back "if" reliable sources are found. Sometimes removal is indeed the first and best option. Garion96 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

PS - here's why it's stupid. I know a lot more about this than you do. If you did a small bit of research, the general claim I'm making is verifiable. Really, go look - they fake stuff. Have you read my Ramsay category? I actually talked to the people - if you don't believe me, CALL THEM. I'll Paypal you the long distance charges...

Basically, wikipedia does not care what you know, or what other people know. Information must be verifiable by using reliable sources. You are not a reliable source. Neither am I for that matter or any other editor. Garion96 (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Explain why my blog is not a reliable source on the subject it was cited on.