User talk:Jerem43/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
McDonald's 47 million served
Hey Jerem43,
Forgive me if this is inappropriate to talk about it here since I am new, but I looked at the source and the source quotes a McDonald's representative directly when mentioning that number, which actually confirmed my feelings that it is a direct line from McDonald's marketing and is not very encyclopedic. Since an encyclopedia should cite specific references, it would thus be more appropriate to find a direct quotation from the McDonald's website rather than through a second-hand source.
Therefore, I think the 47 million should be either deleted or moved to a more appropriate section, rather than right in the introduction as the perfect marketing advert (which it is).
What do you think?
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav12321 (talk • contribs)
- I think that we use primary sources all of the time and since the source is properly cited, it is perfectly acceptable for inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Primary sources should not be used. Wiki articles should be based on secondary sources.Obscurasky (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
PR script
You need to make a new file User:Jerem43/vector.js and copy the contents of User:Jerem43/monobook.js there. I did it at User:Ruhrfisch/vector.js and am able to use my regular scripts with the new vector skin. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Food templates
Jerem43, thanks for the great help. Didn't know there were templates for everything include just displaying the template in {{ }} brackets. Having a look around the other templates you've created. You are a bit of a legend yourself creating all these important templates e.g. soft drinks, colas and pepsi colas...etc. Keep up the good work.
Visik (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
addition to the Template:Soda template list
Hi Jerem43
I have created the templates {{Cherry sodas}} and {{Cherry colas}} for the soft drink templates. I thought it is a good idea to ask you first before I add new additions to the {{Soda template list}}. do you have a particular way of organizing it as I notice you use a column template in there and I wasn't sure how to add them in. If you want to add it in yourself, feel free and also feel free to modify the template to be consistent with your other soft drink templates. Thanks. Visik (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
back to BK Veggie
Thank you for leaving my removal of the statement that SCPI said that the Veggie is low in sodium.
I'm not wedded to my snipping of the three words, "that it claimed ", but since you did not mention that edit when you reverted all of my edits, I'll guess that you're not wedded to including them, either. It's not a matter of substance, just that I think they are unnecessary for the sentence.
And I'm putting the parenthetical statement from CSPI back: if it's pertinent that CSPI praises the low fat, then it is pertinent that CSPI has disliked the sodium content from the get-go, or at least since, documentably, since 2005 (sorry, I still don't understand how to make links).
I have the queasy feeling that it will be excessively redundant, but I'm gonna copy this into the Veggie talk page, for completeness.
GcT (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Sliders vs. Slyders
I noticed you undid the "Sliders" correction I made to the White Castle page but can't figure out why; I can't find Slyders under the TM citation provided, and White Castle itself uses "Sliders." Can you help me understand this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzzy (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Look it up on the USPTO web page under "search for a trademark" link. The Trademark number is provided in the reference BTW. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to USPTO. Turns out that White Castle has also registered "Original Slider" and "Original Slider Buns"--see reg. # 3566188 and #3690786 or serial #77430490 and 77506275, or this link to WC: http://www.whitecastle.com/faqs (Look under No. 7). Since WC has registered both, you can have it whichever way you want it--or maybe the page should list both? Buzzzy (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Buzzzy
Hamburger image
Can you explain how the image is unneeded instead of reverting my edit? Joe Chill (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Buffalo burger
WP:TRIVIA doesn't say that it is trivia. Joe Chill (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Really? the first line of WP:Trivia is Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information. It is a list of miscellaneous facts that have no bearing on the article. The information does not effect the article with its removal or improve it with its inclusion. That is the definition of trivia. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Malvern Water GA
Hi, we replied a while back to your suggestion, but up till now we have not had a reply. Please see Talk:Malvern Water if you would like to follow up. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have been short on time as of late due to work. I will try to get on it as soon as possible. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Talk:Malvern Water/GA1: Thanks Jerem for your exceptionally quick response and review. I believe I have now addressed the couple of points you made and carried out the required corrections. Please check, and we welcome either your 'pass' mark, or further suggestions for improvement. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help so far. I've done all I can now and I'm not one of those editors who really needs a feather in their cap. The article was never supposed to be a mega, all encompassing work. and it's now turning into an ugly, disbalanced collection of disjointed trivia and local tittle tattle from from newspapers, and not very RS web sites.--Kudpung (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Jerem43. Thanks for your GA feedback to date. While I have to try to limit my involvement in projects, I've made a few edits which I hope are of help. Some feedback on the progress of the 'on hold' items would be of help, so (a) we can gauge how much more work needs doing and (b) if such work seems feasible, we can try to steadily work on it rather than try to do it in a mad rush at the end.
- I see also some interesting behaviour [1] on the part of one editor which you probably have noticed, and which apart from noting here that it is part of a pattern, is probably best left alone for now. Kind regards Wotnow (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Selected Articles Template
Hi, I am working on a new portal for Qur'an, you can find it at Portal:Qur'an, the issue I am having is that the Selected Article Template that is in use keeps selecting an article that is not available. Since you are one of the editors who have worked on this template I thought you are a good candidate to help me. You can find the Selected Articles Subpage at Portal:Qur'an/Selected_article could you kindly have a look at it. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 10:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Gallery
Hi Jeremy, thankyou for the advice on adding images to articles. Have you considered a gallery for the Pizza Hut page to show different types of restaurants throughout the world? Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisloader (talk • contribs) 20:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Portal:Qur'an/Selected article/Layout
Hello Jerem43, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Portal:Qur'an/Selected article/Layout, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —mono 17:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
About user:Melonbarmonster2' reporting you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that user:Melonbarmonster2 who probably is at dispute with you, reported you to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and added accusations to you 3 times on July 10. I couldn't do anything to defend you as the report was already archived somewhere, but I wanted to tell you to take caution. Hkwon (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and 13 times on July 9. The user:Sennen goroshi is acting closely with him, adding accusations to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive624#Jeremy.27s_ownership_of_korean_cuisine_2 Please be careful. Hkwon (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- That was a response to my report of him, for some reason it was duplicated. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Your fruit curd revert
Fruit curd is not exclusively a dessert and should not be defined as a dessert in the opening sentence. The ref mentions nothing about dessert. The article goes on to describe other uses. If you believe these to be in error maybe you should delete them from the article.Weetoddid (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Comments are not references
Regarding this Of course comments are not reference, but I think you didn't read the reference that follows the the comments either. Their Hong Kong official website (http://www.burgerking.com.hk) shows that they always refer themselves as "Burger King", even in Chinese version of their legal documents ([ http://www.burgerking.com.hk/zh/legal like this page about their Terms), they always refer themselves by their English name, there is no mention to any Chinese name officially adopted. Literally, the entire website doesn't seem to support claims that Burger King has adopted a Chinese name for Hong Kong's market. International Common Editor (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Malvern Water
Hi Jerem43. Wondering what your thoughts are on the Malvern water GA review. Thanks for your kind comment on the talk page by the way. My current situation may increasingly preclude much more contribution to Wikipedia, but I may yet find a way. Regards Wotnow (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Chocolate chip cookie clutter
Much better. Thank you for keeping the picture I had just added. I thought it was sufficiently encyclopedic especially given all the other images in the article of tangential value (go see the commons category sometime, though), and I'm glad you accepted it as such. I presume, given your role in WP:F&D as attested by your userpage, that it's on your watchlist? Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I know that too, that's why I put the little note in the text saying "Smarties in the UK". Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Be careful when you revert; you may have missed the additions I made there that specifically pointed out St. Croix and Caguas. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!
Anna Frodesiak has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
IHOP
Just to let you know that Marsoobian4695 (talk · contribs) has asked you a question at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#IHOP -- John of Reading (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
(and I see that he has also posted to your user page...) -- John of Reading (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Picture quality
Hello. I noticed that you are an active member of WikiProject Spirits. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could weight in on the picture quality for Bärenfang on the talk page below:
Talk:Bärenfang#Picture_Quality
Thank you very much! WDavis1911 (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
744cody
Howdy. I asked you a follow up question on your report of this user at AIV, but you were probably offline by the time the question went up. Could you provide some more details on why you think this is a sock? I can see that the name fits his pattern, but the edits themselves do not seem to be in line with his most recent socks. I'd be happy to block him, but I need just a little bit more analysis to be sure. Thanks! Kuru (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Jelly
Hello. You reverted my edit to a jelly definition - I think perhaps because you thought it too detailed - however, I also wanted to remove the reference to N.America as this is an unnecessary qualification. Use of this word, in the context of a preserve, is not limited to N. America and the term 'Jelly' is in common use in many English speaking countries to describe clear (or translucent) fruit preserves.[2] Obscurasky (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
BK PR
I will be glad to take another look at it, but it will likely take me a few days. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
744cody
Hi -- as I've commented, I don't think this report can be dealt with at AIV. In the absence of instantly compelling evidence, which I don't see, it would need an editor familiar with CodyFinke to see the pattern. Looie496 (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Should be done
Ping. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
maple syrup
- I am going to help Nikki on the maple syrup article. But am wondering if the is a better article then "Apple" to use as an example because its not all that nice and full of odd broken statements (need paragraphs) and uniformed pic sizes and plus is full of tags -I think its a bit old to use as an example there must be others that are better. Or are you simply referring to the section layout style? Moxy (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Gifford's Ice Cream & Candy
My mistake - I apologize. I was using Huggle to check for vandalism, and saw this diff, from an IP editor. It looked like someone inserting an ad into a reference. If Huggle had shown me the all the changes that were going to be rolled back, I would obviously not have reverted. I will raise that issue on Huggle talk. Also, I did not think carefully enough about the diff I did see. :-( Aymatth2 (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Food stub
I checked the history of that stub since its upload in 2005. The image has been changed quite a lot of times and it has varied. By the way what's an inception? I want to put the doughnut there though because it looks better! The stub is about food, not "wine" as the images title states, therefore, the picture isn't suited to such a stub whereas food such as a doughnut does because it's not a drink, it's a food. Other examples of food include: apples, bread, chocolate and so on. Puffin Lets talk! 20:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
request to review article
Hi Jerem43, I see you reviewed the only other food-related good article nominee. Would you be willing to review mine (Cuisine of Madagascar)? Thanks for considering it, and for your great contributions to Wikipedia so far. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting! If you think you won't pass it for what you'd consider "minor" issues, would you please just put the review on hold and give me a few days to make the improvements, rather than failing the article? I can turn them around fairly quickly. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am not going to fail the article for minor issues, I will point them out and give you time to fix them. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Jeremy - as we get closer to moving the Cuisine of Madagascar article to "good article" status, I've been looking into the different article status levels and have noticed there are relatively few GA cuisine articles and only a few more that are FA (a fairly eclectic bunch, at that). Obviously someone is a big fan of saffron. :D Anyway I'm getting the impression that once an article reaches GA, editors typically try to get it to FA shortly afterward. In your experience is that difficult to do? I'm having a hard time really telling the difference between FA and GA articles and how this would be reflected in Cuisine of Madagascar, for example. I've read the online material and compared some examples but it's still not entirely clear to me. Do you have much experience with bringing articles to FA, and if so, do you have any insights you might want to share? Thanks in advance. - Lemurbaby (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Ghostbusters and my talk page
Play around with it all you like, that sounds like a neat feature. There will have to be a Ghostbusters barnstar made for this! Funny story about Ghostbusters, it was the first film I ever saw on the big screen. I was really young, but I remember it clear as day. It was in this fancy Art Deco theater near where I grew up. It eventually became a dollar cinema and then eventually closed altogher. It reopened years later when some non-profit and the city renovated and resurrected it. It's quite the gem today. I have been there a few times since it reopened, years ago now, and man, was it ever a blast from the past. Great memories there.
"There is no Dana, only Zuul!"
IvoShandor (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- It looks cool. How many quotes does it rotate through anyway? IvoShandor (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm really lovin' it. Hilarious. I think I may have to go home and watch Ghostbusters now. Thanks! IvoShandor (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| Ah,yes. Jerem43 strikes again, this time with a rotating template of Ghostbusters quotes on my talk page. Brilliant. I wish there was a different star to give you, but this seemed more appropriate than the film or template barnstars. Keep up the hilarious work my friend. IvoShandor (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC) |
IvoShandor (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I almost fell out of my chair with that last comment. IvoShandor (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Category removal
Why are you removing categories without giving a reason? Why isn't Jonnnycake, which is a flatbread, a bread? Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- They're pancakes more than flatbreads, a category they are also in. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Will you pls look at Kalduny
I'm danish, writing on danish wikipedia and are participating in the Danish variant of WikiProject Lithuania, and wants to translate the artickle about Kalduny. But .... I am sorry to say, this artickle is of so low quality that I will have to rewrite it totally! Pls. look at my critic on the talkpage! PerV (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
As I see it
Jeremy, hi. Firstly, my sincerest apologies for having opposed you in your RfA. But there's a silver lining that I see. The reason I see editors opposing you is because of your lack of perfect command over policies and not necessarily because of much else - most importantly, nobody's questioning your lack of contributions, and that is 99% of the job done. I say 99% because this means that if you're able to spruce up your policy knowledge and test it out openly with other established editors in the coming two months, you can (and you should necessarily) reapply again in exactly two months (in case this RfA doesn't pass). This is much different from editors who've not racked up enough contributions, and would have had to drudge out for 6 months to one year to reapply. You have to appreciate this point that the community has been quite open and acceptable of your performance and there are many, like I, who would support you in your next RfA in case you've done your policy knowledge revision appropriately - and you seem like an intelligent editor. Editors like Fastily, Fetchcomms et al are extremely supportive editors who'll go the mile to help you in any way you wish. Cirt too is in the same league - the civility issues brought out are extremely important and you should keep those in your watchlist forever. Your verbal infractions are issues that Cirt will wish to reanalyse, but I'm confident that with your changed perspectives and experience, you are improving (or perhaps have already improved) rather than not. In all, I should say on one hand "sorry", for being one of the reasons that this RfA is going down, and "congratulations", for ensuring that the issues the community is bringing out can be resolved in a couple of months. I look forward to seeing you as a part of the administrative community as soon as possible. My sincere regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just fyi, moved to support. Regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad you changed you mind Wifione. I had written a 368 word response last night to what I thought about your 'oppose' message above. Fell asleep and forgot to press the save button ;) --Kudpung (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- :) Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad you changed you mind Wifione. I had written a 368 word response last night to what I thought about your 'oppose' message above. Fell asleep and forgot to press the save button ;) --Kudpung (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
User page award
|
The Excellent User Page Award | |
| For your well organized and pleasant looking userpage, I award you this barnstar. Swarm X 02:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC) |
What else is there to say? Swarm X
Your RFA
 | Thanks everyone for their support in my recent RfA discussion! These notes are very encouraging. - Jeremy |
Unfortunately, I have closed your RFA as unsuccessful, as a consensus was not reached to grant you the tools. I hope that you will take some time to carefully read over the concerns and encouragements given you in this RFA, so that you can continue to develop as an editor here. Don't be discouraged; just continue to do what you enjoy doing here, and who knows? Maybe you'll find that you have more to experience here. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 04:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I hope it's alright if I say that, even though I opposed in the RfA discussion, I regard you as a constructive and useful editor, with, as I said in the RfA, many strong points. My opposition was specific to certain matters relevant to being an admin, and does not reflect on you as an editor. I am sure that you will continue to do useful work as an editor. This time you got a much better rate of support than last time, and I see every reason to expect that you will continue to learn and develop, and if you ever decide to have another go at RfA I hope you succeed. JamesBWatson (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Hi Jeremy, Let me be the first to offer my commiseration. I had left clear signals, even to the risk of making enemies, that I consider your RfA to have been invalid. In a nutshell:
- Pile on 'oppose' !votes due to possobly unfair additional questions.
- Detailed 'oppose' !votes by blocked users, which although struck, may already have significantly contributed to the landslide 'opposes' due to Q6.
- Probably most important, you might simply not be well enough known outside the 'RfA 'gang' to have attracted enough !otes to cancel out the large number of opposes.
- Apart from you having reviewed one of my GA, I don't really know you, so my feelings are based on principles, and entirely on what I think about the current state of the RfA process. Don't be despondent, it was a very close call. Apart from a very small handful of regulars, the voting pattern changes all the time, and I'm sure that you'll pass with flying colours next time.
- Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Hi Jeremy, Let me be the first to offer my commiseration. I had left clear signals, even to the risk of making enemies, that I consider your RfA to have been invalid. In a nutshell:
- Let me also say I'm sorry your RfA was not a success. However, I think you should be heartened by the amount of support you got as well as the fact that the majority of opposes were based on individual events or responses to questions, as opposed to your character or ability as an editor. I'm not saying it's fair- in fact I'm somewhat in agreement with Kudpung that some ridiculous factors worked against you. However, I certainly feel you have the potential to pass with flying colors and if you try again I hope you will. Just don't get involved in content disputes with RfA regulars. :P Swarm X 06:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Piling on commiserations and support. The % swung steadily away from you as the RfA continued, but to your credit you didn't constantly intervene with justifications, objections or whatever. I'm sure that dignified silence was the right tactic! I disagree with the result, but nevertheless the reasons cited in people's oppose comments give you good feedback about what to do and what to avoid between now and your next (I trust successful) RfA. Clearly a squeaky clean civility record is essential, plus boning up on some procedure. I'd leave it more than three months, personally, but I do think you'll get the mop next time if you take on the feedback here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Kim Dent-Brown that you should take on board what people have said and try again. I don't know what the perentage is of admins who took more than 1 or more than 2 attempts, but I suspect it's quite high. It took me two attempts. It's like passing the driving test, though not as serious. Good luck with your third attempt, and if you'd like someone to look over your contributions prior to nomination, give me a buzz when you're ready. SilkTork *YES! 17:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Allow me to join those here giving moral support. As I noted in my oppose, it was a hard !vote for me as I took note of your many contributions and impressive list of upstanding supporters. I again encourage you to try another Rfa perhaps as soon as next April. I also was impressed by your calmness 'under fire'. I salute you, and thanks for undergoing the ordeal which some of us, myself included, have not personally faced. Jusdafax 00:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Christmas Card
Do restaurant reviews count as "significant coverage" of the reviewed restaurants?
FYI, I started a thread on this question at the Notability guidelines. --Lambiam 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)