User talk:Acett99

April 2013
Hello, I'm Arctic Kangaroo. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Flora2000 with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Arctic   Kangaroo  03:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC) It was an unsourced promotional paragraph, which I edited. The whole article is an advertisement with no trustable references.in my opinion must be placed for deletion Acett99 (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"controversy"
There are a few problems with the "controversy" listings you are adding to multiple articles. First, it's not really a controversy; it's a statement that they received whatever grading they received - no controversy is stated nor implied. Second, BBB ratings are regional (according to our article on BBB, there are 113 BBB individual BBBs in the US and Canada) - so these ratings are not gauges of national nor international performance. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not agree. For example reference to BBB is included here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acett99 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 7 April 2013‎
 * The first paragraph of that section actually states a controversy, and it's that controversy which the BBB rating helps to support. By itself, the BBB rating is simply a statement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you removing BBB from Bloomex? That section of that article does state a controversy, and the BBB rating helps to illustrate that controversy.  By itself, a BBB rating is just a statement, not a controversy ... but statements can be used to illustrate controversies where one is listed and where applicable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Just follow your logic. If you check say Costco or flora 2000 delivery complains, it will be more then enough to create a controversy paragraph for them with BBB ref to support. Since you are removing it from Costco, the same should be done for other companiesAcett99 (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you're being intentionally disruptive to try to make a point (a violation of WP:POINT), or if you truly cannot see the fundamental difference. A BBB rating is not, in and of itself, a controversy.  It is a statement that can be used to illustrate a controversy if one exists, but by itself it does not comprise a controversy.  In the Bloomex article, a controversy is spelled out with references in the preceding paragraphs, and the BBB rating illustrates that existing sourced controversy.  In the articles you were adding the BBB rating, no controversy was mentioned nor implied - simply a statement of a regional BBB rating. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So if I create controversy article about delivery problems say Costco has, I am allowed to put BBB reference there.correct?Acett99 (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you locate reliable sources that state a controversy exists, then the BBB statement could potentially help to illustrate that controversy. The Bloomex example you linked previously is a good example of how to structure it (including the third party references that explain the controversy). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)