User talk:Sir kris

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Sir kris. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh thanks! =) Sir kris (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no improper revert[edit]

There was nothing whatsoever improper about my reverting your edit at Shooting of Trayvon Martin. It was improper of you to insert your content into this section without first reading the sources that were already there that verified the content. Next time, do your homework.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the sources before performing the edit. The material I removed was information that has since been proven to be false and I provided proper sourcing to substantiate that. You had no grounds for reverting the edit. If you wish to debate the merits of the sources, please do so on the talk page in the section I created for that purpose before taking it upon yourself to unilaterally decide what edits you will and will not allow. If necessary, I will loop the admins in on this and ask them to add a protection flag to the article. Sir kris (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is referring to a photograph of a Facebook page of a completely different Trayvon Martin and another purported photograph of Travyon Martin. Those two photographs and the story that accompanies them (from your source) have absolutely nothing to do with what Martin's parents said his measurement's were. So therefore, what his parent's said was not a hoax and I had grounds to revert your edit. Is that really that hard for you to comprehend? And FYI, I don't need your permission or consensus to revert or add content to ANY article on Wikipedia. There was a previous discussion, and consensus, to provide the reader with reliably sourced content that reflected what his parent's said his measurements to be. If you had bothered to read the entire article, you would have seen that this controversy (the other purported pictures) had already been covered in the section titled Media portrayal of Martin and Zimmerman. So, feel free to loop away.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013[edit]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Up All Night (TV series). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. As I said on the talk page, the sources I cited were written by reputable TV critics and I pretty much just quoted their own reviews.

Please don't spam my talk page with baseless personal attacks like you just did. I understand that you really liked that series, but whether we like it or not is not at issue. The article was fairly one-sided and omitted numerous criticisms that have been levied by critics, so I corrected that. Posting condescending BS on my talk page isn't going to make me back down from that, just FYI. You're welcome. Sir kris (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Up All Night (TV series). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]