User talk:Wikiexpertfrance

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Mean as custard (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see that as promotional material but fine, so in that case do not add promotional material such as the guardian review which has been put there just to get some advertisement to the journalist who wants to sell his book

The material was copied directly from another website, and thus was a copyright violation. Please don't add copyright material to this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Le Cinq, you may be blocked from editing. DVdm (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I will stop if people stop adding a promotional link to an article put there just to make promotional of the journalist's book. Do you find that normal that is mention this article and not the hundred others who are talking in nice terms about the restaurant? It seems that someone just want to hurt the restaurant and people there.
 * What are you talking about? I don't understand...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

— Someone was adding a link and few lines to mention a very bad review a journalist did few days ago just to promote his book. This is what I was making the modification for

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Mean as custard (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to add a suitably-referenced favourable review in the interests of balance, but don't just remove unfavourable content. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikiexpertfrance, you are invited to the Teahouse!


—————— I didn't know about the three things, but you were asking me no adding a promotional content so how can you explain how that you feel free to add a promotional content for a journalist to sell a book when it gives nothing to the restaurant? Do you even think about all the team working behind this reading these really bad words how they feel about that and all the jobs generated by this restaurants? do you really think that this restaurant of that quality has to be resumed with such a nasty bad review ? It is only promotional content, you have to apply you own rules to yourself aswell of it's not fair for the others.

When I check other restaurants who did receive a bad review like this it's funny they never got the mention in their wikipedia. Why should this one then? It's promotional content, read the article you will see that the journalists links that to sell is new book and that's all. Please be human and think about the consequences of putting that review on a wikipedia page.


 * If you had simply removed the bad review, it might have been considered justifiable, but you then went on to add this highly-promotional unreferenced content:
 * This suggest you have a conflict of interest, particularly as you have made no edits to any other articles . . .Mean as custard (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed copyright content from the above post, as the material is from http://press.fourseasons.com/paris/hotel-news/2017/michelin-stars. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed copyright content from the above post, as the material is from http://press.fourseasons.com/paris/hotel-news/2017/michelin-stars. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)