Talk:Lucky Lou's

Problems with this article
I made an attempt to improve this article earlier but I see I have been reverted. Oh well. Some of the problems include:


 * Poor references; almost none of the references still work, and most of them look like they should never have been used in the first place. See WP:IRS for details of how to identify better sources.
 * Written like an advertisement; this article has (rightly) been tagged as being an advert for several years.
 * Dishonest use of sources; in the few cases where the "sources" still exist, it seems clear that they do not actually support the text they are being used to support.

I would like to see some progress on fixing this please. Reverting poor and unsupported material may make it look like you have a conflict of interest. Thanks a lot. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , I know you reverted in annoyance yesterday, but the problems won't go away. If you've nothing to add to this discussion which I started at your request, I ask you not to revert again when I reinstate the edits I made yesterday. There was material there that should never have been there, linked to sources that would never have been good enough and which no longer exist. I think the bar looks like a lot of fun and is probably marginally notable enough to have an article here, but the article probably shouldn't have sourced to a reviews site which no longer exists. Agreed? --The Huhsz (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , You openly admitted to finding and gutting this article as a revenge tactic for me placing a maintenance tag on one your pages. I have zero interest in working with you. If you continue to harass me or things I work on, then I'm taking this to dispute resolution/admin noticeboard. Please leave me alone and I'll do the same with you. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. You sound very angry that your work was held up to the same scrutiny you expect to hold others to. That isn't very logical, is it? I am fine to leave you alone, but you mustn't revert back the policy-busting material a second time. Does that sound reasonable? Removing material such as I highlighted above cannot be described fairly as "gutting" it; more a cleanup of material that shouldn't have been there in the first place and has been tagged as inappropriate for six years. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, that wasn't too smart, was it? You seem very sensitive if you view this as harassment, but since you feel that way I'll leave you to it. The article can't stay this way forever, or even for another six years, as you well know, but I can see it is really important to you to fix it yourself. Fair enough I suppose. If I swing by in a day or two and the ADVERT material is still there, I'll ask for another opinion. Have a nice evening. --The Huhsz (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)