Talk:Somerfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Food Giant 2 BTTF 3 Citation tags 4 Citations and Bias 5 Requested move 5.1 Survey 5.2 Discussion

[edit] Food Giant

Food Giant article links are to a US company - not the UK version. Bods 14:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Food Giant links now removed; note in the Food Giant article directs those interested in the UK chain to here or to Kwik Save. Fourohfour 18:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not any more. It's a disambiguation page now. The Food Giant link there points to Somerfield. Digifiend (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BTTF

The links to BTTF lead somewhere apparently irrelevant --PeterR 21:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Namely, the movie Back to the Future. I've delinked it. Digifiend (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation tags

It's funny how when I dare to question a citation tag inserted by DrFrench or Fourohfour, I am accused of vandalism and the rules of Wikipedia are cited most stringently. Yet when they choose to insert such citation tags, no such explanation is offered. When these tags are inserted into South Shields, Kwik Save or Somerfield, it is usually for facts or assertions so generic that no such information would be requested elsewhere on the site, yet for daring to challenge them and reverting these tags, you are treated as an unwelcome sore on the face of Wikipedia. Strangely, when you seek to take these issues beyond the initial reversion by said parties (and others, I must say) the threats of vandalism and banishment from Wikipedia are rarely carried through.

Is this, I wonder, because they know in their heart of hearts that they are wrong and that the independent spirit of Wikipedia is being destroyed by those who would hide behind an elaborate members' page and pretend that they own the place. I say NO, I say that anyone should be able to asset their opinions on this site and that it should be as legitimate to state that a citation is not required as it is to state the opposite. You may well spend half your life on Wikipedia, that's up to you - I'm not that sad and quite frankly I don't care - but please don't patronise those who work to keep this community independent and beyond the control of those who seem to live for it, usually individuals so far removed from the real world that they don't have a clue what's actually going on.

Yes, I have vandalised the sites and amendments of those so anally retentive that they seek to destroy the independence and impartiality on which Wikpedia was founded, and I make no apology for that. What I should have learned to appreciate is that they are so collectively thick it will have no effect. Some things on this site must be taken on trust as no person, living or otherwise, has the capacity to reference every single point of every article on Wikipedia. When you start asking for references on the type of shelves that Kwik Save had in the 1990s, then you are quite frankly taking the piss. If someone has taken the time and effort to write about something so obscure, maybe you should think about their motives before demanding a citation! lawsonrob 22 June 2007, 01:02

You've posted this in three places (Somerfield talk page, Kwik Save talk page and at your user talk page.)

Since it's hard (and pointless) to have the same discussion across three different pages- and since this is mainly an issue between users- I've posted my response on your talk page, and propose that we keep this discussion there. Fourohfour 12:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations and Bias

This article reads more like an advert in places. The majority of the article is uncited, speculation, personal thoughts and much of it written in favour of the company. I would like to request that the article is thinned out and any points that cannot be cited or neutralised be removed as soon as possible. In my opinion there are only 2 or 3 paragraphs that can be salvaged. | See rules Zzx28 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a trawl round over the next few days to see if I can find sources for some of the statements in the article. I would suggest leaving a couple of weeks for sources to be added, before cutting too much from the article. I don't detect much bias in the article, myself, but there are certainly a lot of statements here that need to be properly sourced. If reliable sources can be found to back up the statements, however, they cannot be considered 'original thought' and should be retained. --Michig (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move