User talk:Jerem43/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jerem43. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Thanks for uploading File:DQ 1950s logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the gallery format could potentially be a useful way to show the evolution of the logo, but is there any particular reason these logos need to be shown? We current have a gallery of non-free images above a block of unreferenced text which seems a little trivial. Have any reliable sources covered these logos? Is there any reason to think the evolution of the Dairy Queen logo is of interest? J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That argument could apply to any company. The fact that these logos exist does not mean that they should be used- historical logos are only required if they themselves are significant, there's nothing like an "automatic entitlement" to them. Unless you can demonstrate the importance, they really need to be removed. J Milburn (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any particular reason to consider these logos significant, or should they be removed again? J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, you feel that any historical logo of any company should be included in the article on the company, because "they are part of the company's corporate history. We include other facets of various companies' histories in their articles, and this is specific, valid part of those histories. Companies spend multi-millions of dollars annually on creating a brand and logos are part of that process"? If you do, you hold a very fringe view of our non-free content guidelines. There is not an automatic entitlement to use historical logos, and you are going to have to demonstrate why those logos themselves are significant if you want them retained, not just make vague statements about how great logos are generally. (Also, this is a dispute about our non-free content criteria- you feel the logos meet them, I don't- I really can't see how you can argue this isn't about them...) J Milburn (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, someone has left a rather odd message on your userpage- possibly trolling, possibly intended for here. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed this (see above...) and you've just continued to spout the same nonsense- you're going to have to demonstrate why each of these logos specifically is important, and, even then, the gallery format is not a good idea. Please do not continue to revert. J Milburn (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jeremy, since you're a coordinator of WP:FOOD and oversee many food articles, would you care to look at 青鬼よし's contribution to the article of Japanese cuisine?[1] The properly referenced information from an academic book has been repeatedly deleted or altered over the time by a long-term and persistent sockpuppeter named Azukimonaka (talk · contribs), his sock accounts and IP and his alley. So the article was semi-protected by Chris to prevent from such disruption, but he is not active for a while. Would you look into it? Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:Denny's#Sodium_levels. Incidentally, the use of an anti-vandalism tool such as twinkle in a genuine content dispute is rude and condescending; the "good faith" rollback feature is used primarily to revert edits which border on vandalism, or otherwise grossly violate policy, but which, per WP:AGF, are not necessarily construed as deliberate attempts to destroy articles. Erik9 (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you add this. Has adding Articles by Quality and Importance been discussed with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink? If so would like to impliment it. SunCreator (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I just started working on a review of Korean cuisine and was just about to put it on hold when I noticed that it wasn't listed. I was about to do it myself when I thought about how odd it would seem. I think it would be far less confusing if you did it instead.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for assessing the Chipotle Mexican Grill article. Significant changes have been made in the past year to source all statements and bring the article up to WP standards. If your suggestions are acted upon, what is the process for re-assessment? Angryapathy (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Arghh, good point. I've reverted. Thanks.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Your Revision as of 23:08, 10 October 2009 included the addion of <ref group=BK name=UK/> that is causing a cite error. Did you mean to add <ref group=BK name=Britain> instead? Whatever you meant, could you go back and fix the reference? Thanks. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be interested to know why you consider that table of external links of all of Burger King's corporate websites to be appropriate? Thanks. Miremare 02:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not all of the international franchises are linked from the BK home page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have got a bit mixed up there - I thought you reverted my edit removing the table, but you seem to have reverted to that version. Was that intentional? Anyway, it seems that this page does include all the links in the table, as well as several others. There's also policy reasons and guideline reasons why external links should be kept to a minimum. Cheers, Miremare 06:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No they are not, a lot of the south American and Asian BK sites are not available. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Peru are the only South American ones on the table and they all seem to be listed on BK's links page. But the point I'm making is that it's overkill to include such a comprehensive directory anyway, and of little use to readers of the English Wikipedia when each one is in its own language. Miremare 18:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you stop taking out the country inside the infobox? In case you didn't see it on Template:Infobox company, it requires the city state AND country (it says so on the bottom, take a look). People who view this article from other nations would have a better understanding of where it is. It doesn't matter if there is only one Louisville, Kentucky in the world...also, how would you know? Just kidding, there probably is only one. But seriously, a lot of articles I looked at include the city, state and country..for example Burger King (would you argue there is only one Miami, Florida?), Hardee's (St. Louis, MO?), Dunkin' Donuts (Cambridge, MA?), and I recently added it to Carls, Jr. ← notice anything about these? I got them off your page, where it said you helped rewrite some of them. So, I'm here to help articles, not hurt. You removing countries from the infobox, I believe, would be considered vandalism, I could report you. Tinton5 (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If you read the note I left you on your page you would know that there is no such requirement. Your assertions are incorrect, the statement is that the form May be in the format of City, State, Country or City, Country. Notice the bolded "or"? Please don't make threats against other contributors, it is bad form. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but they both include country too.

Doesn't matter, it is not a requirement. There is only one Ohio in this world, one California etc The only time you would need it is the case of Georgia or some other area.

Template:Food panel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Sodas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I will be glad to look at it again, but it may take me a few days (please remind me if I forget). My only fear is that reviewing the article will make me too hungry ;-) Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be glad to take another look at it, though (as usual I see) it may take me a few days. Every time I read the article, I get very hungry for BK food though! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, I noticed you corrected some vandalism on the Cold Stone website by an anonymous user, and this made me wonder, why does wikipedia allow anonymous users to edit main articles? It seems that with all the problems with verifiability and sources and things, that users should, at a minimum, be required to create a login profile before being allowed to make edits. In your experiences as an editor, has this ever come up in discussion? do you know the reasoning why wikipedia allows this? Seems crazy to me! Akuvar (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can see the value in that concept (flagged revisions), but its true purpose is to create a buffer from any user that makes an edit to an article under that protection. It still doesn't address WHY wikipedia allows anonymous users to make revisions at all. It is clear from the media that millions of people use wikipedia, and although wiki prides itself on being a user-created encyclopedia, it doesn't explain why anonymous users should be given this privaledge. A person can logon from any library computer and vandalize articles and face no retribution at all. It doesn't make sense to me. Most importantly, What does wiki lose by disallowing anonymous users from making edits? Akuvar (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi- whatever you did in the test isn't working with the |project= parameter. See: Category:Investment articles by quality to see what it's doing wrong.--Funandtrvl (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, it looks like it's working now. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A template you created, Template:Sodas, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi-for cleanup purposes, is there any chance the {{foodbox}} template could be a redirect, so not to be confusing? Thanks --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 event even before the New Year starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who object to or don't like messing with pig products and this year's event includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to assess the Michael Carlson article. I appreciate it. Any suggestions you have for improvement would also be welcome, although of course not required. Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI - the "thank you" notes you are adding to user talk pages contain a category which I believe you did not mean to add. You may want to remove the category from future pastes, and from the pages you have already posted on. Thanks.  7  06:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that title says everything I wanted to say. Vizjim (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think all that's needed is the deletion of the old cats and assessment pages. Rich Farmbrough, 08:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC).

You've got the OK from me. Go ahead. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't revert an administrative action of mine without at the very least notifying me. Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Although I completed the move, it would have been nice to know it had been previously closed. I can see why you reverted the closure - there's no point waiting for discussion from an empty room. However, in any similar future case, it would be good to include a note indicating what happened, for the sake of transparency, and to notify the closer, for the sake of courtesy.

I was thinking about the backlog in RM, and didn't carefully check the talk page history, or I probably would have noticed... -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, my fault for a failure to notify those involved. I apologize to those individuals. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Duke flexible batch broiler.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi someone added the Fast food template to the Chuck E. Cheese article. I just was curious on your logic on including both Peter Piper Pizza and Chuck E. Cheese on the Template. both are sit down no take out at all the locations i know of. so i am not sure how they fit the definition.Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the image and the talk page - I'll leave it up the the "experts" (i.e. those that know the history) to deal with the placement on the article, etc. Thanks for the kind notice. Skier Dude (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)