User talk:82.14.82.223

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Plymouth has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN aka john lennon 10:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Michael Ball. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the material that has a reference. Thank you. Snowman (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2008 (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.

[edit] Please sign comments

Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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.  —SMALLJIM  10:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Plymouth College, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. I've undone the controversial edits to the article. Please discuss on the Plymouth College Talk page before reinstating them or making other similar edits. Thank you.  —SMALLJIM  11:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.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) 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deliberate contentiousness

Hi. Your recent edit on potential versus theoretical catchment area is a good illustration of why so many users have to leave messages on your talk page, and a good illustration of what I meant in an earlier comment on one of your many IP pages about unnecessary small edits. Yes, we could just let it drop, as potential and theoretical are basically the same thing, but your edit summary almost seems to be a deliberate provocation. This is what is termed trolling on this site (and others on the internet). Fortunately for you, everyone else including myself will continue to try to be polite to you regardless. I changed local to regional on the tourists, because I honestly believed there weren't 11.8 million visitors to Plymouth each year (that would be something a large area or large city would get). This had to be a regional figure, although I didn't know its provenance, hence me asking for a source from whomever might listen. This then becomes a signal to you to make a small edit to the same section and put a catty comment into the edit summary - even though you didn't actually alter the 720,000 catchment area figure, just the exact wording of its preamble, and a change that makes no real difference - so you agree with the catchment area figure then, but you want to take the opportunity to be catty about it - do you see how this might be irritating? Again luckily for you I could say that you have skillfully avoided being in breach of guidelines, but of course I'd be wrong given your various previous incarnations and their fates. Now there is a phrase 'don't feed the trolls' but currently I'm in an 'engagement' mood. Stevebritgimp (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Plymouth's problem is deliberate overselling of mediocrity. There is no potential catchment area of the type described and no research to support it. Anyone living in all but south east cornwall and the western south hams does not regard Plymouth as the retail centre. it is easier and generally quicker to go to Exeter and not much further to cribbs causeway,, Bristol bath and Cheltenham. Plymouth's perception of itself as a regional leader in this field is founded on nothing except its need to bolster its own self esteem. the circumstances on the ground point in the opposite direction. The recent worry that House of Fraser may close Dingles and John Lewis advancing discussions with Exeter Gity Council all indicate that Plymouth's idea of its catchment area is a mirage. Gingernut 23 3 08

[edit] April 2008

Your recent edit to Culture of Plymouth (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)