User talk:Bped1985/Archive 1

New Page Patrol
First I've heard of this. Tell me more.

Sorry about that. I'll do it once I figure out how. Thanks for the note. Regards, --Manway (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Been patrolling over two years. You're the first one that's pointed that out. I appreciate it and will use it. Thanks! And a pleasure to make your acquaintance. --Manway (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just did. Added the userbox. See you over there. And I'm not a seasoned professional...just hacking away at vandalism. --Manway (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

RE:
Thanks sooo much! Glad to know my work is appreciated :) Anyway, I don't know much about Braun, but if I get a chance I'll see if i can dig anything up. I really wanted to work on Bieber's bio and make it a GA article, but I already know its going to be attacked by people who don't like him, so I really don't wanna go through that lol. Candy  o32  - Happy New Year :) 17:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well let me tell you; if you could make Bieber's bio a GA you would be... like the best editor on Wikipedia. With the amount of vandalism that thing sustains. Haha. Thank you for the help! Bped1985 (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:61.135.195.128
Given that the offending edits were "way back" in december, countered with the blatant disruptive and WP:BLP nature of the edits, I dont think it will matter much to a reviewing admin that the person recieved 2 "level 3" warnings rather than a "final warning". Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait so you're saying that if the user vandalizes again the I should just go ahead and report it? I've got no problem with that haha. Thanks! Bped1985 (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you point out that all of the edits from that IP have been VERY problematic I dont think there will be any qualms about issuing a preventative block when the problems start again. Active Banana    (bananaphone  23:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto! Dreadstar ☥  05:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Kenny hamilton
In the first place, there are zero reliable sources. Secondly, being someone's bodyguard is hardly a claim of notability. Thirdly, the entire thing is POV. Fourthly, please sign your Talk page posts. Corvus cornix talk  05:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1.Yes the article is written with poor WP:NPOV. I didn't write it. 2. I know I have to get sources, give me a second... 3. The bodyguard isnt but his being a well known DJ is. 4. I normally always sign my posts. I apologize about that. It must have just slipped my mind... Thanks Bped1985 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:ShamusHand and Ezzy v. United States

 * Ezzy v. United States has been deleted as a blatant hoax; the opening paragraph of "Ezzy v. United States, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark although controversial decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of presidential eligibility for nonhuman entities. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a rabbit's decision to have a presidency, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother's health" should've been a hint ;p. Ironholds (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OH WOW. I don't know how I missed that. And to think I gave that author a barnstar. Well, thanks for catching it. I'm going to revoke that barnstar now. Gosh... I still can't believe I missed that. Cheers man. Bped1985 (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Dignity College of Architecture
Hello Bped1985, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Dignity College of Architecture, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not previously been deleted via a deletion discussion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 05:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was just deleted. Look at the Deletion log at 04:06, 5 February 2011 by User:Acroterion. I see it there... Bped1985 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * However, that was not a deletion discussion. G4 only applies to AfD discussions, not speedy/prod deletions. Logan Talk Contributions 05:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. Huh. Thats a new one. Thanks for the tip! Bped1985 (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Let me know if you have any other questions about deletion criteria.  I'm here to help. Logan Talk Contributions 06:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar. Much appreciated. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just spreading the Wikilove :) Bped1985 (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  03:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Marking as Patrolled
I am not quite sure how to do that but it sounds like it could be useful. Is there just a button I need to click? -Nem1yan (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I came here to ask basically the same question and found it answered for me. Thanks for the help!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help! Bped1985 (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point I feel uncomfortable marking anything but pages that should obviously be deleted; I just don't trust my own experience in regards to more complex issues than that. Is that an acceptable way to work on the new pages list, or do I have to aim to be more well rounded?--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, I was asking if I should be doing more in depth patrolling than just searching for articles that seem to meet criteria for deletion. But I think I managed to get it answered. Thanks again though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You know what, why not, it seems like a good idea. Anything I need to do to join besides adding the userbox to my page?--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Seger (Religion)
Thank you for the notice; I've again deleted it. In the future, please don't tag pages as G4 in cases like this — G4 is only for pages that have been deleted after a deletion discussion. Instead, the page should be tagged for deletion under the criterion/criteria under which it was deleted the first time. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, I'm planning to file a sockpuppet investigation of several of the accounts used to create and build that article — I suspect that they're not all different people. Nyttend 13:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia
Would you mind explaining what you're doing and why you are slinging around accusations of vandalism? Mindbunny (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Joe Wiegand
Hi Bped1985. Just to let you know that I declined the speedy deletion tagging of the above article, both because the article makes plausible claims for its subject's importance as a political figure, and per the comments you made on the article talk page. For future reference, if you do change your mind about a speedy deletion tagging, you can remove the tag yourself - you don't need to wait for an admin to do it.

Though the article is ineligible for speedy deletion, its subject may still fail to meet notability standards. In this case you can tag it for proposed deletion or take it to AfD. Thanks, Gonzonoir (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
I don't see how you felt messaging me about my edit on Chewing gum was necessary as I doubt you understand the entire situation. I saw an incorrect fact on the Chewing gum page about possible carcinogens in vinyl acetate; the correct information was actually in the page for vinyl acetate. So I simply copied and pasted the relevant correct info to the Chewing gum page. I did not cite the source because I had no idea where it was from; it was on the other page for a while so it must be sufficient. I then see that someone edited the page to show that I did not cite that source, then another person edit the page to show that the source was un-cited as of February 2011. I feel that is absolutely ridiculous so I simply Googled the 'questionable' information and linked the relevant source, which was one of the first results, this took a total of 20 seconds to accomplish max. I then cited both articles (Chewing gum and vinyl acetate) with the correct source. So after doing all that I find issue with you feeling the need to (insultingly) message me about something as insignificant as this that you consider a ‘joke edit’ when the time of the users of Wikipedia could be put towards better goals instead of something not actually contributing anything to Wikipedia. Plankton5005 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that all this happened while any of the other users involved could have contributed just as easily but instead chose to contribute to this trivial pointless part of Wikipedia (this conversation included) that focuses on these petty things instead of focusing on contributing information (like I did) and my choice of language reflects that. Plankton5005 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent change patrolling and false positives
I've started a discussion of this at the Village Pump. Mindbunny (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Scooty
Was there anything that controversial here? I moved the birthplace from the intro per WP:MOSBIO, I moved a category to create alphabetical order, and I removed the name "part" because the name on top of the infobox automatically matched the name of the article without it, as it should. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for barnstar
Thank you so much! --NellieBly (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Tiptoes
OK, rly, Tiptoes might as well have ended that way... did you even see it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binderhead (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

James Son Thomas
Hello ! Wale Liniger is from Switzerland and not from Sweden - this is fron his site biography :

WALTER "WALE" LINIGER, a native of Switzerland, fell for the Blues when he heard his first Lightnin' Hopkins record. After he graduated from the University of Bern (Switzerland) he taught for eight years in the Swiss public school system before he moved to the United States in 1982.

From 1984 until 1992 Liniger worked as a Research Associate at the University of Mississippi's Blues Archive, directing the archive's oral history project, "The Original Down Home Blues Show."

from the site :  http://www.bluesprof.com/

Thanks

LUCIOBLUES

=
=========================

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LUCIOBLUES (talk • contribs) 13:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello to you to! First off, I want to thank you greatly for assuming my edits were in good faith and not coming in to my talk page with guns blaring. It's a refreshing change to see such a thing.


 * Now, onto the article. The reason I reverted it was partly because I wasn't paying 100% attention. So I do apologize for that. The other reason is because if you want to say someone is from Switzerland the correct word would be that they were "Swiss". Because you were so awesome in this misunderstanding I'm going to restore your edits to the last one you made, so that your work isn't lost. Just be sure to change the word "Switzland" to "Swiss" in the article.


 * It looks like you're also doing some touch-ups to that BLP so I'm going to put an "under construction" tag on the article. This will remain in place for 7 days and will tell other recent change patrollers like myself to refrain from reverting edits.


 * As a sidenote, make sure you sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~ < That is a tilde) after your posts. Bped1985 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User page
No problem. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Eco-marathon
Let's be friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.28.194 (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure... The issue with the edits to the article is that adding the group Mexicans into the list of people who participate just calls un-needed attention to them. What I mean is, notice how there aren't any other ethnicities named in the list of attendees. So, simply adding that "Mexicans attend the event" without naming any other ethnicities is un-needed. On top of that, you changed the heading "History" to "Unforgivable"... for whatever reason. Bped1985 (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Top 7 Reasons Why You Need a Personal Website
Hello. I see where you nominated this article for deletion as pure vandalism. Please note that this article does not qualify as vandalism. While the article will probably still be deleted, please be sure to understand the rationales for deletion before placing a CSD tag on a page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on my talk page. TN X Man 18:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks
Hey! Thanks for the barnstar! However, you also reverted vandalism on my talkpage, so I'll give you one too.

Warning blanking
Hi,

What warning should I issue to this IP address User talk:75.47.135.82 who blanked his talkpage? 149AFK (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

He keeps doing this so I hope I don't have to go over 3RR. 149AFK (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that depends. Is he blanking warnings from his talkpage? Or conversations where editors were warning him about things? Those things should not be removed. If they are just removing regular conversations, that is generally allowed. If the person is removing warnings and the alike from the talk page, I would suggest a removal of content warning, with a message after that explaining that warnings are not to be removed from talk pages. I have restored his talk page to what it should be and issued a warning. Look at the code I put in to learn how to use the uw-delete tag. Bped1985 (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * I'm not sure how to use twinkle, though I added it to my gadgets list. Could you give me a hand? 149AFK (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Twinkle does quite a few things, but for us RCP members, the biggest advantages are:
 * Easy article maintenance tagging
 * A more automated process for CSD tagging articles
 * Easy way to warn users
 * Automated process of reporting users to admins aka WP:ARV
 * But now that you enabled Twinkle, when on any article, you should notice a drop-down menu on the top ribbon where the "read, edit, history" buttons are. There should be a drop down menu with the initials "TW". Click on it, and a few options will appear.
 * The first option is "CSD". Clicking on that will cause a box to pop up, with a menu of all the CSD options. Clicking on any of those will cause the article you are on to be tagged for CSD under the reason you selected, and will automatically notify the creator of the article.
 * The second option is "Last". This will show you the difference between the last change.
 * The third is "RPP", or Request Page Protection. Please see WP:PP for info on what page protection is.
 * The fourth is PROD. Which stands for propose deletion. Please see WP:PROD for more info on this.
 * The last two aren't very commonly used, so if you want more info on them, see WP:XFD for information on what the XFD option is. The last option, "unlink" is very rarely used. See WP:backlink for what that is.
 * When on a user talk page, another option will appear at the top of the list, called "Warn". Clicking that option will cause a box to pop up. This is how you can warn users in Twinkle. This one requires a bit of explanation, but I don't want to type all that if I don't have to :D. Let me know if you want some info on how to warn users.
 * I hope this answered your questions! Let me know if you have any more. Always happy to help! Bped1985 (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The drop-down menu does not appear on my browser. Is it because I am using Internet Explorer? 149AFK (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Using IE shouldn't have anything to do with it. I captured a screenshot and posted it to http://twitpic.com/48d9l5 I circled in the picture what I am talking about. 06:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, just can't see it on my browser, I'm not sure if I've installed it properly. Should get there eventually. 149AFK (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How did you say you enabled it again? Bped1985 (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I clicked on it in gadgets. I've got to be offline in a minute or so. 149AFK (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then we will install it at another time. I promise it will be worth the effort! Bped1985 (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why'd you delete my post?
I wrote about the Nicolet High School ninja. It is a legitimate event that occured at the school. I gave you links to look at. Do research before you delete. <span style="font-size: smaller;" 65.31.130.110 (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, please sign your posts at the end of them. Do that by typing four tildes, like this ~ . Secondly, the problem is that the information is just not entirely important. Trust me, I live in Milwaukee, and I remember the event and the coverage it received. In other words, in 50 years, who is going to care about a ninja that lurked in the woods behind the school? If anything, the scope of the event was only due to the novelty of it.
 * Despite this, I am going to restore the info (minus the "One student was able to sum up this horrific event with these emotionally moving words "It's totally bogus, I hate it." part, a tad irrelevant). I will also remove the vandalism warnings from your account. Bped1985 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Many thanks for the star. You folks are the ones who deserve them. This place wouldn't function for a day without all you great vandal-fighting ninjas! :-) Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You most certainly do. Have a great evening, my friend. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I'll keep that in mind. :-) MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lidl
I'm so upset :(

I believe my edits to Lidl were not vandalism. Lidl is cheap and my stories were true. I used to have a friend who was a manager of Lidl and he told me all this. And it was proven in a recent poll that many people who got to Lidl struggle financially. As for the song, it's a genuine song, about a brave man who came to England and shoplifted in Lidl, got caught and got banned.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianassangeftw (talk • contribs) 23:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, well maybe you should phrase that differently then, because to say that the store is known best to "provide gypsies with a place to buy their groceries" is quite the racy statement. All content on Wikipedia must have a source, so your stories form your friend wouldn't necessarily work out, as they would count for WP:HEARSAY. Lastly, the content you added was at best irrelevant. Bped1985 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pikey Number 4 says pikey youths often hang around Lidl so that is sourced. :) and they are true stories, and it wasn't irrelevant, giving examples of the ongoings of Lidl is very much relevant and what I mentioned was a very famous case at least among the Lidl Staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianassangeftw (talk • contribs) 10:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please make sure you are signing your messages. Do that by typing four tildes, like this ~ . Urban Dictionary does not count as a reliable source. There is no editorial oversight and most content on there is posted to be funny, not for factual accuracy. There were a lot of stories posted in your edit. Stories are considered as original research and do not belong in Wikipedia articles. Lastly, the information you added, however true it may have been, is incredibly biased. Wikipedia articles must maintain a neutral point of view. Articles are meant to declare facts, not elaborate extensively on them. For example, before you edited the article, there was a section that read:
 * "'In March 2008 the German news magazine Stern released a cover story reporting systematic surveillance of Lidl workers, including the most intimate details of their private affairs.'"
 * You added the following:
 * "'Workers were said to be devastated, one worker even lost out on a night of passion because it was revealed in a dossier that he was planning on buying something that was £1.69 due to the sexual connotations, and then show his wife the price tag, and that bitch would have been well happy.'"
 * There are multiple things wrong with what you added there. Just to name a few:
 * That is defiantly not a neutral point of view. There is an evident bias to what you put in. Regardless of the truth to them, biases do not belong on Wikipedia. The article already said that the company invaded the personal lives of it's employees, there is no reason to add a story to it.
 * Secondly, the content was unsourced. I know I'm repeating myself here but all content on Wikipedia must have a reliable, third party source. Frankly, it sounds like hearsay to me, which counts as original research.
 * Thirdly, your use of the word "bitch" towards the last part of that edit was completely un-needed. Profanity is not allowed on Wikipedia, unless the context of the situation absolutely requires it.
 * I have done my best to explain everything I could here. I hope this answers your question. Bped1985 (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) That was a quote from him, I just forgot to put it in quote marks D:
 * 2) The source is the Magazine which was previouosly sourced by the article without my edits.
 * 3) It's not absolutely required that you have a page for words with profanity and quotes with profanity on certain pages, but they aren't constitued as vandalism.
 * 4) I like turtles. :)


 * Also Urban Dictionary is a reliable source, it's the shiz for kids. Oxford can go die as far as our youth are concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianassangeftw (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, lets put it this way.
 * I'm 17, also a kid. I do think Urban Dictionary is a funny site, but I would never use it as a source in a research paper for school. The same applies for stuff on Wikipedia.
 * If the information is from a source that is previously named in the article, then add another footnote. There can be multiple footnotes for one source.
 * Like I said before, the story wasn't really necessary, as the article already mentioned that Lidl often invades the personal lives of their employees.
 * Yes, the use of profanity when not required does count as vandalism.
 * Quotes from your friend do not count as a source. They are original research. Unless your friend is a high-ranking person in Lidl, then his quote is merely an opinion, and souldn't count as a representation for the rest of the company.
 * And I'm glad that you like turtles.


 * And to what part of your edit are you referring to when you say "The source is the Magazine which was previouosly sourced by the article without my edits."? Bped1985 (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

1) o_O you're 17 and you moderate Wikipedia? I thought it was all 40 year old men who's wives left them, you're an exception. 2) Lazy... >.> 3)Yes but using your logic of a research paper at school, it's best to use examples of things in a research paper, so why not when discussing Lidl and how evil they are to their staff? :( 4)If I went through 100 pages and pointed out profanity that I thought wasn't necessary... you'd be spending days editing. 5) My friend is a high ranking employee at Lidl... he's the head of Security, proper hardman. His name's Peter. Peter File. 6)YAY TURTLES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianassangeftw (talk • contribs) 21:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * While most people on Wikipedia are older, there are a few younger people on.
 * Where did you say that you got the story anyway? I'm starting to lose track.
 * You are correct in saying that a lot of Wikipedia pages have un-needed vandalism, but frankly I can't do much to fix that unless I come across those pages. I remove profanity as I discover it.
 * And regarding the friend, that guy must take a lot of crap considering his name sounds like pedophile.... Did you really expect that to just fly over my head? Bped1985 (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I said the story was from my friend who holds a senior position at Lidl. And I know, I was just saying... and don't be mean to my friend, he got bullied for 7 years at school :( then the Lidl employees laughed at him when they went to the park during lunch for work. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianassangeftw (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I honestly thought you were kidding about your friend's name. Sorry for any offense. Anyway this conversation has dragged on for a while and not gone anywhere. What would you like done with this article? Not guaranteeing I will do it but I would like to know. Bped1985 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like the Lidl song to be included. FYI it's by Afrikan Boy and contains lyrics such as one day I went to Lidl, I went to shopllift in Lidl, then I got caught in Lidl, now I don't go back to Lidl. This is relevant because it is a parody of Lidl. :) it's ok, Peter found it funny and took no offense so is tasteful.


 * Hmm. Well, the problem with that is frankly I don't even know that this Peter fellow really exists even... No offense, but I just have no way of knowing for sure. The other issue is that Peter's opinion might not reflect that of the rest of the employees of the company. I do believe however that Lidl is probably not the best place to work. When vacationing in Ireland we shopped there a few times and I remember that it wasn't the most pleasant place. Back in the states, we have Aldi's, which is a split-off from Lidl's and the two are nearly exactly alike. The general consensus is that its a rather crappy store. So I definitely find some humor in that parody. The hang-up with parodies in Wikipedia is that the other more curmudgeony editors wouldn't find it so funny. And would most likely revert it in seconds, and issue a vandalism warning. Bped1985 (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)