User talk:Cogneur de grenouille

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! &#8734;&#9788;Geaugagrrl (T) / (C) 16:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. ''The content you added may or may not be related to Mack's owner, but not Mack itself. Desist, please.'' Stephenb (Talk) 12:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Stephenb noted and accepted. cogneur de grenouille (talk) 15:06, 13 October 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. Incidentally, I've accidentally broken the rule myself on the Renault article. Personally, I'm going to cease and desist to avoid being banned, though I have been following the Wikipedia sourcing policies linked in the 'Welcome' above that you should probably consult. I suggest you do the same. John Nevard (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am learning! So, I have refined the text to eliminate anything that could be considered 'not factual' in content. I have deleted the 'framedbythefrogs.com' website link, but I have retained the link to the Court Judgement and the external media article (there are dozens more articles which could be linked, as the case was considered to be ground-breaking in UK legal circles and also gained coverage in the USA, but I linked to one which I consider gave a balanced, non-legalistic, view of the outcome, even if not favourable or flattering to either side in the case). cogneur de grenouille (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The only 'proper' news article I could find on the case was this one at The Register, an online tabloid. Weblogs don't apply. John Nevard (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You could have picked your name better
There's something about coming onto Wikipedia as a 'Frog basher' that indicates you do not intend to act to improve the encyclopedia. John Nevard (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, the correct translation of my user name is 'frog bruiser' John. In future could you please make more of an effort to uphold the Wikipedia quest for accuracy :-) but if you could also give me definition of 'improve' then I will do my best! cogneur de grenouille (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Source on Renault article
The judgement is alleged to be a transcript of a primary source. There is no reason to believe it is unaltered, as it would be if published by a news agency or government department. The text you have been posting interprets the results and rationale of the judgement, another violation of Wikipedia policy on primary sources. There is no source from a third party, a newspaper, whatever, that indicates the judgement is considered particularly relevant to Renault by an independant third party. John Nevard (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And that source clearly indicates that Renault lost the case because they made a profit from selling the cars despite not making the one they should have had the discount scheme not been abused, certainly not because they had 'framed' anyone. John Nevard (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Basing your comments just on the article is a bit disingenuous John, you should read the entire Judgement, as it clearly sets out the lengths to which Renault and its employees were prepared to go in order to pursue the case and contains some very unflattering remarks by the Judge about the witnesses Renault put forward. It also confirms all the allegations that Renault employees initiated the whole scam and then, when found out, tried to cover their tracks. It may not make nice reading, but it's what the Court saw, not anyone else. cogneur de grenouille (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's your interpretation of a primary source. This is prohibited by Wikipedia sourcing policy. John Nevard (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Read your revision to the Renault text John, can't find fault with it at all! Well done! Just one question though, how come the phrase 'The company is well known for numerous revolutionary designs, security technologies, and motor racing.' is acceptable in the introductory section? Where is the authority for that? cogneur de grenouille (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)