User talk:193.35.8.232

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Warnings

Note: Remember to always substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | kate's tool | page moves | block log | block list

[edit] December 2005

  1. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Tεxτurε 18:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. When editing pages refrain from using a writng style that resembles conversation. Please use sandbox. The sandbox will help you refine your skills and become a constructive contributor. Thank you.
  3. Please stop changing the "to" to "from" in this article. Top Gear started before Brainiac, and i'm pretty sure (as are a few other editors who have changed it back) that Top Gear did the caravan thing before Brainiac started. Thanks. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.. This includes both the Top Gear and [[Brainiac: Science Abuse}} pages. 9cds 16:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 9cds 11:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jesus. Why are you so adamant to enforce your versions upon articles? The majority of the community has disagreed with reason, whereas you have failed to even discuss the matter to come to some sort of concensus. The idea with wikipedia is that we learn from one and other and decide who's right together, in order to make a good encylopedia. Not battle it out with each other's views; that wont get wikipedia anywhere. In fact, Wikipedia has a three-revert-rule, meaning if you revert something more than three times you're supposed to get banned. I suppose we've been lenient to you in that respect.
    So if you'd like to discuss the dispute on the Top Gear talk page with a reason of why you think you are correct, please do so. Thanks.
    Oh, and you keep getting reverted on the Brainiac page because the sentence you keep putting in is just a bit too chatty and opinionated. But still, you dont have to keep reverting it. Its nothing personal, we just dont agree that it should belong in an encyclopedia. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. THIS IS A FINAL, FORMAL, WARNING to you not to edit the Top Gear article to state that caravan abuse was brought to Top Gear from Brainiac. It is well known that the opposite is the truth, and if you persist in ignoring the warning included in the article then YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM EDITING WIKIPEDIA FOR ONE WEEK without any further notice or warnings. You should discuss your edits on the article talk page, as Jeffthejiff suggests. -- Arwel (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (Administrator)

I have just come across this page. The reason why I have edited the Top Gear Page is because it is factually inaccurate for two main reasons:

1. To say that an idea like abusing caravans is taken from one show to another is just nonsense. That is like saying that ITV copied the BBC because it started covering the news, or sport. Just because one show and another have the same way of doing things does NOT mean that one show has taken it from another.

2. The link is Richard Hammond. To say that he took the idea of hating/trashing caravans from Top Gear to Brainiac is to assume that he had a role in deciding the editorial of either show. That is not the case. As a presenter he presents, Producers produce. Presenters do make suggestions, bring ideas into shows but Richard Hammond did not bring the idea of maltreating caravans to Brainiac Science Abuse. The idea was independently arrived upon before Richard Hammond was even considered as a presenter.

And that is a fact.

Please delete the incorrect sentence.

OK, i agree with you there. But why didnt you just delete it in the first place, explaining this? -- jeffthejiff (talk)

On the Brainiac page, can you tell me where you have found the criticism that Brainiac's method is "unscientific"? Most viewers quite understand that - as the show is called "Science Abuse", to criticise it for being unscientific is a bit of a nonsense...

Aye, that should probably be re-worded to state that it IS unscientific rather than its criticised to be unscientific. But it is often compared to Mythbusters in this way. -- jeffthejiff (talk)

PS to anyone: doesnt the "new message" thing come up for anon IPs? If not, its a bit unfair to warn people about banning on their talk pages if they dont even know it exists... -- jeffthejiff (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly didn't see any "new message".

It would still be nonsense to say that it is "unscientific" - why would anyone expect it to be scientific at all if it is "Abuse", one might as well criticise it for not being "artistic"

You cant just assume that everyone would automatically realise that; the information about the programme should at least say that the experiments are taken in the interests of entertainment rather than exact science. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please sign your comments!

Hi. It is good etiquette to sign your comments that you make on talk pages. You can do this by adding ~~~~ where you want your name to be. Please see WP:SIG as to why. Thanks. -- PS2pcGAMER 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)