User talk:BrendanKennedy

Welcome

Hello, BrendanKennedy, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

BrendanKennedy, good luck, and have fun. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Congratulations, you have managed to add four totally superfluous words to a stable and informative article,. Yes, it makes it less readable, but what is that compared to being pedantically correct and scoring points with a nitpcik.. Yes, we are all aware that dogs and horses and bats and lemurs and many other animals will occasionally eat nectar. But you have pedantically pointed this out in an article, to no one's surprise or enlightenment. Your efforts are appreciated and are what make Wikipedia so great. Go forth an do more, please. Mark Marathon (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn’t superfluos whatsoever.

Are you on meds? The article was as clear as day. BrendanKennedy (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kola nut. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those were all constructive edits to include slang and dispell the myth of a kolatin that is shown on other websites. What are you referring to? I would appreciate my hard work to be put back on the page. This is very silly discussion, please elucidate your criticism. BrendanKennedy (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also the culteral references relating to lakes and nationalities and peninsula near north west Russia are fun to incude in the article and relevant as they are unique names to places only found in one part of the world. BrendanKennedy (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I havent made one unconstructive edit to winipedia please refraine your joke. BrendanKennedy (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Kola nut, you may be blocked from editing. Zefr (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My prior edits were not disruptive and you have not shown proof that kolatin has been debunked by science because it doesn’t show up on a search of select search engines.

This edit is actually fruitful because your source 1 and 6 for kola nut not being used are not evidence only source 10. You only cite source 10 for the second mention that kola nuts are not used anymore. Source 10 should be used under the mention under the uses section.

You are very rude and do not provide evidence for your edits. I am reporting you. BrendanKennedy (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact sources 1 and 6 are not evidence for kola nut not being used in the recipe and should be supplanted with source 10 for the first mention and limited to source 10 for the second mention. This is non refutable and needs to be corrected. I cannot make the edit because of your threat being non congruent with my prior edits relating to nut composition, which you haven't given Roper evidence to refute kolatin’s existence and your edit of common terminology used by other cultures sometimes considered slang and your cultural edits regarding names of lames and places synonymous with drinks that may still contain cola nut, pepsi, and the nut itself and their proximatey to each other being a source of interesting query. BrendanKennedy (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t edit the “talk” but *roper is *proper and *lames is *names in erroneous spelling. BrendanKennedy (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the “original research” I have posted here. BrendanKennedy (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article also erroneously states “cola” drinks do not contain kola nut anymore when source 10 only mentions coca cola. This should be corrected. The first mention omits source 10 which is misleading because the sources 1 and 6 are not evidence. BrendanKennedy (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Coca-Cola formula. Common sense in mass production of Coca-Cola or other globally commercialized colas would lead to the conclusion that kola nut extract cannot be used on a mass scale. Several secondary sources have come to that conclusion, knowing no one can source the secret formulas used by manufacturers. For you to dispute sources without any source of your own to include in the kola nut article is WP:OR. And I am not going to teach you English grammar and spelling - you can get help at WP:TEA or join a blog where proper English doesn't matter. --Zefr (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]