Talk:Saks Fifth Avenue/Archives/2017
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Saks Fifth Avenue. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Edit warring by User:Rockhound57
Rockhound57 is currently warring to include possible future information in the article, written in a vaugly promotional tone. If possible, I'd like to resolve this so we can all get back to building an encylopedia 
samtar {t} 14:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The information regarding the future is not possible it is definite since it is confirmed by several sources to be scheduled. I am not "warring" with anyone I have left on you numerous responses on your talk page with zero response. Thank you and have a nice day. Rockhound57 (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please see my talk page for my replies - I've also reported you for edit warring, and am contemplating raising with the COI noticeboard
samtar {t} 14:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Velella - I hadn't noticed the section above but I would hazard a guess it's related. I'm attempting to AGF but come on... samtar {t} 14:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Good faith, like Pizza dough can only be stretched so far..... Velella Velella Talk 14:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Because it has contined for several months afterwards (causing several blocks) and is not unlikely to return to this article too, let's also note the problematic editing of 172.100.212.147 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (who received multiple warnings about their editing in this article shortly before Rockhound57 registered his or her account). 172.100.212.147 has on several occasions deleted independently sourced content under false pretenses, which I have now restored (e.g. [1], [2]). Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Another new user, Rothschild89, subsequently removed much of this sourced content again, once more stating a rationale that was factually wrong ("was moved to saks corperate [sic] page as it was agreed it lacked the relevance for this article" - neither had there been such an agreement, nor had, say, the Reuters statement about discounts ever been moved to Saks, Inc.). I have reverted this deletion. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)