Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
In general, "Original Research" is anything that can't be cited. So if and editor adds content, it needs a source. If you are having edits reversed out (and I know how very frustrating that is), it will generally be a good idea to find a source to cite. ] (]) 20:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
In general, "Original Research" is anything that can't be cited. So if and editor adds content, it needs a source. If you are having edits reversed out (and I know how very frustrating that is), it will generally be a good idea to find a source to cite. ] (]) 20:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> —] ] ] 20:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:38, 11 November 2008
"Competitors" of CNBC
Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. As you will have seen, I've continued to revert your addition of a "competitors" section to the CNBC article. This really isn't necessary: you'll notice that two templates, {{Television news in the United States}} and {{International news channels}}, sit at the bottom of the page and already provide comprehensive lists. To cherry-pick a selection of channels as "competitors" in this way presents problems with undue weight and could be considered original research. As an example, in my opinion the only TV stations which CNBC is in direct competition with are Bloomberg Television and Fox Business Network, the "pure" business stations. This clearly differs from your opinion. One of Misplaced Pages's cornerstone policies is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability - as a subjective list which is unsupported by reliable sources, this fails that test in my eyes, and so I think the article should do without. Regards, Gr1st (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be missing my point a bit here. You are using the results of a survey conducted on European viewers of television in Europe to justify your additions to a channel which operates purely in North America. There is a complete non sequitur there. Since you've yet to produce any reliable evidence which cites Euronews as even a semi-serious competitor to CNBC in the U.S., you're only proving my point that this list is entirely subjective and has no place here. Your comments about Worldwide Exchange and CNBCs Europe, Asia and World have nothing to do with this as far as I can see. Gr1st (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome
Hello, Jmanjmanjman! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Misplaced Pages you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Gr1st (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
In general, "Original Research" is anything that can't be cited. So if and editor adds content, it needs a source. If you are having edits reversed out (and I know how very frustrating that is), it will generally be a good idea to find a source to cite. sinneed (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —teb728tc20:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —teb728 t c 20:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)