User talk:T3dkjn89q00vl02Cxp1kqs3x7/Archive 3

List of accompaniments to french fries
If you feel the need to remove everything that is unsourced in List of accompaniments to french fries, not much will be left as most of the article is written without sources. Perhaps following the recommendations set down in WP:PRESERVE would be in order seeing that the unsourced content seems fairly reliable, instead of just hitting the deletion button? - Takeaway (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you were the person who deleted most of the material. Then you restored it.  At least one of these actions is questionable under WP:POINT.  The article was tagged as needing citations since January 2010.  It is perfectable reasonable to delete content that has been sitting uncited for more than two years.  I don't understand what you mean about keeping material that "seems fairly reliable."  For example, you restored an entry that in Bulgaria, french fries can be ordered covered in grated white brine cheese.  In what way does that "seem fairly reliable?"  Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I have put a request for comments on the article's talk page. Please make your case there, and do not edit the article further until this is resolved.  Thank you.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You deleted the Bulgarian entry just because you have never heard of it and therefore think it is unlikely? The entry seems as much likely as the Canadian poutine having cheese curd. Here's a source for the Bulgarian entry. Found it in a few seconds through google. - Takeaway (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might follow the suggestion on the refimprove template in future which says "Please help improve this article by adding sources" instead of simply removing unsourced content. - Takeaway (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

STOP
Please go to the talk page before removing reference material, and ask further information regarding the source. Your edits on my works are pushing the envelope WP:HOUNDING WP:CTDAPE Jetijonez (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I think the main issue is that some of your edits have involved adding questionable sources per WP:V.  Basically, it's unclear to another editor what the sources are or whether they exist.  These sources have been added to articles that are already of questionable notability.  The net effect is not so much to improve the articles as to make them more questionable.  But since you've asked, in future I will post queries about sources on your talk page.  Best wishes.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Source/Ref

 *  Dallas Observer Dec. 1989. The Dallas Observer is a weekly not monthly newspaper.  Please provide date and page number for this source.  (I noticed that in an earlier version, you listed this as Dec. 1990.  - This Dallas paper I cited was a monthly periodical, and was in black and white print.  And yes a correction was made on the year from 1990 to 1989, we call this editing - WP:CITEHOW ;page number(s) are optional


 *  Business Daily January 7, 2002 pg. 56 Business Daily is the name of a UK TV show.  Do you mean Investor's Business Daily?  Please give the name of whatever source this is. – If you had read the  edit summary  you’d know – so once again it was a business newspaper and unfortunately It seems not all content can be found on the internet, and when you do find something like Business World Magazine, you could end up with this  one  this  one , or this  one  You may want to try your local library (the archives) It's where I pull some of my citations


 *  Travel LA Times September 5, 2010 What is Travel LA Times?  Is this the Travel section of the Los Angeles Times?  I believe that this is published on Sundays, but September 5 was a Friday.  Please provide exact title and section/page number. – I’m not sure what calendar you follow, but here in the U.S. September 5th, 2010 was a Sunday, and yes it was the travel section of the Los Angeles Times - exact title was Surfing for air fare deals WP:CITEHOW ;page number(s) are optional, but I will title it properly on the Reflist.


 * Business Weekly Dec. 7, 2010 What is Business Weekly?  Wikipedia does not list any newspaper or magazine with this name, and a Google search only shows obscure local publications with similar names.  Please provide exact title and section/page number. -  This is a monthly business periodical, which comes out every 2nd Tuesday of the month. If Wikipedia doesn’t list any information(on this paper) is probably because it may not be notable enough to be on there – again You may want to try your local library (the archives). Good luck. Jetijonez  (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response and the correction about Sep 5. The other three references are questionable and I intend to delete them.  Maybe you've got the titles wrong for all three, or maybe they don't exist at all.  There is no monthly paper called the Dallas Observer.  There is nothing called Business Daily or Business Weekly, with those exact names.  I asked at my local library (archives).  They said that either you have the titles wrong or these do not exist.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow you made to your library amazingly fast. Cause you couldn't find, does not mean it does not exist (It could have fallen out of circulation) I check my notes, and present more references.Jetijonez (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * They looked in something called Ulrich's. This has every periodical including out of circulation ones.  Business Daily does not exist by that name.  The only ones named Business Weekly are in Taiwan and Ghana.  They also looked up the Dallas Observer.  There is only one and it is a weekly.  The monthly Dallas Observer does not exist by that name.  Good luck.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

THIS Brand Clothing
PLEASE STOP reverting the references in THIS Brand Clothing article as per WP:CITEHOW which states: "Citations for newspaper articles typically include:" typically = in most cases, but is not law. Furthermore since "Fashion" magazine is the source in question,WP:CITEHOW doesn’t seem to cover Magazines, unless I missed it. If you have something more on this, why don't send it over to me. Lastly I would appreciate if you could keep this up on a civil level. Comments like  I doubt this source actually exists  serves no productive purpose, and just undermines my integrity. And while your persistence,is welcome, it can be perceived as WP:HOUNDING and WP:CTDAPE. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia, as we do not tolerate this behavior. Best regards Jetijonez (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, the reason I am saying that I doubt the sources actually exist is because I doubt they actually exist. I wish there was a more civil way to say that, but I can't think of one.  All you need to do is provide some more information on these sources.  I've asked you half a dozen times now.  Just pull your copy of Fashion magazine off the shelf.  Is it the Canadian one or the US one?  What is the name of the article?  I also encourage you to read WP:PERSONAL.  There's nothing personal on my part.  It's about the content. You are doing everything except fixing the content of this encyclopedia.  Just fix the content.  Just fix your references.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, here's some information on dispute resolution. I warmly encourage you to look into these policies.  Good luck.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I hope you look into WP:HOUNDING and WP:CTDAPEJetijonez (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've mentioned that before. If you think I am hounding you (you are the one writing on my talk page), please file a complaint.  Best wishes.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks :) Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For future reference
Kingdom City, Missouri has 5 hotels, 6 gas stations, 3 sit-down restaurants, 6 fast food restaurants, the Heart of Missouri Tourism Center, the State of Missouri Firefighters Memorial (and soon the museum), a dance hall, a construction company, two towing/repair centers, an 18 wheeler truck wash, a carpet retailer, a post office, a bank, two retailers geared towards tourists (one of a national chain), the headquarters of a trucking company, and a festival fair grounds. Have you ever researched anything before commenting? I've been doing Wikipedia much longer than you and made more articles. Perhaps you wish to research all my edits?Camelbinky (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop the lack of AGF, calling one of my edits vandalism can be considered quite a breach of wikiquette. Please learn our full array of editing procedures before taking on a "crusade". Thank you.Camelbinky (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The vandalism edit summary was a mistake. Sorry. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please revert V3/4 warning
Please revert the vandalism warnings on User talk:71.102.21.238‎. The particular edits are 2 days old. I'm in a dialogue with IP user re edits related to Palm Springs, and I think the level of warning will be seen as an unhelpful WP:BITE. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Let me add the edits were not vandalism. Please WP:AGF.03:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Srich, you handled this incorrectly. This was not a newbie but a longstanding IP editor who has been warned repeatedly about unsourced edits.  Over the past four months, he's been on a spree adding unsourced material to many articles.  He is also an admitted sockpuppet who has been warned by an admin to not edit when logged out.  See  and  for details.


 * This is what you did. You emailed me and you posted messages to me on my talk page and the IP's talk page, asking me to revert warning templates because we should not bite newcomers.  Not only was this the wrong thing to do, but three messages was overkill.


 * This is what you should have done: report the editor to WP:AIV for continued vandalism after a final warning.


 * Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * PS: Please do not ever email me again.

Joseph R. Carvalko
Sorry to step on your toes on this one, but actually I've prepared a rather elaborate AfD for this one, which I was about to do when we edit-conflicted. I'm hoping not only that you'll understand, but also that you'll share your thoughts at the AfD. Thanks so much! Qworty (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't really mind, but there's something to be said for trying a PROD first. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Avacor
I am not sure whether you still want Avacor deleted. If so, please provide the reason for deletion at Articles for deletion/Avacor. If not, just let me know, and I'll close the AfD as "nomination withdrawn". Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to nominate Avacor for deletion. I want to withdraw that nomination.  Thanks for your help.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring
You are edit warring and are repeating, your complaint without reading the article in question, you believe the article is a copyright-vio please apple the proper tag – remember Wikipedia takes edit warring very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing Ghost rider14 (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Jetijonez Ghost rider14. According to WP:COPYVIO, "If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed...."  You've been told this before, please see WP:IDHT as well.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OH AREN'T YOU SO FUNNY, TRYING TO LINK ME WITH A SOCK! That's so sad cause you're losing this argument Ghost rider14 (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My bad
Sorry about that ANI notice - clearly meant for the other editor (who you should have notified). Trying to get out of my door at the moment and must have posted that to the wrong window. Dpmuk (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra work at Petroleum Helicopters International, Inc.
Thanks to your extra work I now agree that at least parts of that version are clear copyvios and have reverted (there's more on this on the article's talk page). To expand a bit on why I did not think it was clear before, starting with your comments on 15:38, 23 August 2012. I believe the re-write meant that it was borderline whether any sentence was a copyvio as the changes, in the examples, were reasonably significant and a lot of the similarity was factual. Similarly I believe that whether there was copyvio in the structure was also borderline due to the chronological nature meaning that creativity was probably limited. I think I would probably have come down on the side of calling it a copyvio based on this but I don't think from that it was clear enough fro a 3RR exception or a G12. Your example of 03:28, 10 November 2012 but I'd be loath to do a mass revert based on a single sentence as if this was the only problematic sentence I think de minimis would apply. Although I would want it rewritten to be on the same side I would not consider it needed removing in the mean time. Your extra example take it way beyond that however and it's now very clear we have a problem. Sorry I couldn't look into this more earlier and safe you some effort and strife. Dpmuk (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dpmuk, thanks so much for your help--I'm glad to contribute as well. There's also a question of sockpuppetry, but hopefully that will be addressed before long at SPI.  There are civility issues too--this guy actually wrote "F U" as an edit summary--wow! never saw that one before.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry about my slightly rushed actions earlier which consequently weren't ideal but as we're so very very short of admins that deal with copyvio I wanted to at least partially deal with this before heading out as otherwise you may have been waiting a very long time! If they'd actually expanded the F they may have got a block from me for that but as it was I blocked them for a week for obvious socking and hopefully CU / the more usual sock puppet crowd will sort out if there's more than that. Update: While I was writing this Alison has just said that the CU data isn't conclusive.  I'm already confident that the accounts are acting together but not yet sure they're socks and don't have time to dig into it more myself now or for a few days as I can take an hour or more to convince myself of sockpuppetry in cases such as this.  Oh well my holding block of a week gives us some time for someone to investigate further. Dpmuk (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

heads up
Just a note that it's often a bad idea to tell a sockmaster that you are investigating his socks at SPI. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Broccoli citation *has* been added
Logical Cowboy, Are you actually reading the change before removing it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.93.218 (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, you can't use Wikipedia as a reference for Wikipedia, it's circular. You need an outside source.  Thanks for contacting me.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

things about barbecue
Hi. The reason a put the table about men's cooking and women's cooking in barbecue page is because the result (that table) is drawn from a case study about barbecue done by a Dr. in NY university. Why would you think it is not suitable for the barbecue page? I know what I'm trying to put is about the sexual stereotype but Barbecue to some extend symbolise it, so why shouldn't we put that into barbecue page?Chchan457 (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, the main problem is that this material did not mention barbecue at all. Every section in the barbecue article should be directly related to barbecue.  If the source did write something specifically about barbecue, then refer to the babecue material.  Otherwise it is original research--see WP:OR.  Also, is the table directly copied from the study?  If so, then it was probably copyright violation--see WP:COPYVIO.  We can't use long verbatim quotes from copyrighted sources.  Again, just summarize material from the source that is directly relevant to barbecue.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

University of the Pacific
If you believe that the people I am putting on the University of the Pacific (United States) wiki are "not notable" I recommend you making edits on the List of University of California, Berkeley alumni wiki. There are a plethora of people on there that would not fall under "notable", according to your book. In addition, I would like to make a distinction between notable in the real world and notable in academia. Clearly, someone in the academy will not be as notable to the general public as say, Miley Cyrus or Jay-Z. Just because someone may have never heard of a scholar does not mean he/she is not notable. But please make edits to the aforementioned UC Berkeley wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacific1851 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Pacific1851 (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Francisco G.


 * Thanks for contacting me. Here is where Wikipedia defines notability of people in general: WP:BIO.  For academics, notability is defined here: WP:PROF.  Again, I suggest writing articles about people who are notable, then linking to them.  With regard to your comments about Berkeley, have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Merry Christmas.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I just finished reading the three links you provided. For the purposes of my reply, I will only refer to WP:PROF and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I will begin with the latter and then move to a discussion about the former.

(1) Although you never explicitly said this, I can infer that you implicitly meant to say it; You provided the link [WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] because you think:

(a) I am pointing to an article on a similar subject that exists and trying to prove that the edits I made on my article should also exist. Or vice-versa.

(b) I am employing all-or-nothing reasoning. i. e.g., Keep--If you delete this you will have to delete everything in Category:Wikipedia articles about X.

I am now going to say why I am not making the type of arguments discussed above and in the general page WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I made the comment about the UC Berkeley page not to say that my edits should be kept because UC Berkeley also maintains similar edits and/or that if you (Logical Cowboy) do not like my edits, then you ought to delete all edits of the same nature on UC Berkeley's page.

I am not trying to articulate the aforementioned.

What I was trying to say was that there are edits on the UC Berkeley page that are similar in nature to mine and should be looked at with suspicion; not that they should all be deleted. And if you were to make edits, then they would be ones from you own volition. Notice that this is not what the two links you sent me defined as troublesome.

I am not guilty of (a) because I am not using Berkeley's page to substantiate my claim. I am not guilty of (b) because I am not telling you that you should delete everything; just that you ought to look at it.

As for the notable remark, here is a quote from the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: " identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial"

This quote gives insight into what I am also trying to articulate. 'Notability' is rather ambiguous. Even with the WP:PROF page. This is because 'notability' in academia is constantly evolving; it is not set in stone. I believe Wikipedia would agree. There is more to say about this but I need to keep it short.

(2) The points from WP:PROF page about 'notability' that I would like to raise are:


 * 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
 * 9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
 * 9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

The aforementioned are criteria that the academics/scholars I listed on University of the Pacific (United States) wiki meet.

Pacific1851 (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Francisco G.


 * OK, I warmly encourage you to create Wikipedia articles about academics meeting WP:PROF, then link to them from other articles such as the Pacific one. Simply adding a name to a list such as Assistant Professor Joe Blow, with a citation to Joe's own website, is not enough to establish notability.  You're putting a lot of effort into this--again, I warmly encourage you to create some great articles about notable individuals.  This is different than the "drive-by" approach of adding lots of names to a list.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And here are some tips on creating articles. Have fun!  WP:Writing_your_first_article.  Logical Cowboy (talk)

Requests for adminship
Hi there. Have you considered running for adminship. You seem to have the required skills, and I think you could probably pass. Happy Holidays! TBr and  ley  05:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I've got a day job. I expect you'll be an admin long before me :-). Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you're generally busy, I understand that. Thanks for that, but I doubt that will happen in quite a while, I don't exactly have the best record, 3 blocks from last year and a request for comment. I wish though. Have a merry Christmas, TBr  and  ley  05:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you could do it, but there's no rush. And there are plenty of other things to aim for.  At the rate you're going, you'll have my vote, though.  Merry Christmas.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, I know. Thanks very much, but I would myself still like to wait a while longer. I will of course ultimately try at some point in 2013, regardless of whether I pass or not, but I appreciate constructive feedback. I do know administrators who have been blocked before in their early years, so it is nice to know you can still get up to that status sometime, regardless of their past. Merry Christmas! TBr  and  ley  06:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

 * Thanks! Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Johan Neerman
Hello Im Julia Williams123. Can you explain, why all his references and changes have been deleted? All references are verifiable and documented. Could you please provide me with an explanation? best regards Julia Williams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Williams123 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was tagged since September 2012 as lacking references. Most of the material deleted had no references at all.  I did delete two references, but these had little to do with the subject of the article.  These references were mainly about the subject's father's work, and did not support the material in this article.  You might want to read WP:V.  Also, if you see Tanya Nelson, could you mention this issue?  She is also adding unsourced information.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok I understand what you mean. I will work on article at the nearest time and put references in shape. Thank you for your support and advice.Kind regards,Julia Williams123 17:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I added article, but I can see changes only on my computer. If I try to view profile from the other computers changes are invisible. Could you explain it and validate profile at the nearest time? Thanks for your cooperation. Julia Williams123 —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I can see your changes. Try asking your question at New contributors' help page/questions or Teahouse.  Good luck.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I added article. Could you please check it and validate. Does it still have danger to be deleted? Will appreciate to have your opinion. Thanks for your cooperation.Julia Williams123 17:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that referencing in the article has been improved. Whether the subject of the article is notable, or whether this is a promotional article for a non-notable person, is a matter for the community to decide. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The Shangri-La Diet
Hello, I added External Links to The Shangri-La Diet. You removed them. Why? It is unclear why. Although you referred to a page of guidelines, it is unclear what on that page you are referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.74.78 (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the first one, Shangri-La Diet forums, should be avoided under WP:ELNO point 10 as well as WP:ELPOINTS point 4. The second link, Mark's Daily Apple discussion, is a dead link.  It was disruptive for you to add a dead link to the encyclopedia four times.  If the link is fixed, then WP:ELNO point 10 would likely apply.  I warmly encourage you to get an account and make constructive contributions.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks!

Cmckain14 (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC) 


 * Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

ang]] (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding: Jason Shellen
Hi, you've tagged the article with BLP Sources. Could you please explain where do you think more sources needed for verification? Thanks,  Nickaang  ←chat  14:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've commented on the article's talk page. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Attempted Contact to Resolve Editing
I am trying to resolve the editing of Gandhi. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9711CA (talk • contribs) 01:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not an advert
I understand your removal from Breakfast but the New Zealand Breakfast Tea is directly related to Twinings. The link is three years old and is therefore archived information relating to the company's international history. Should we remove List of Burger King products from Wikipedia because, oh no, by your logic, that makes us an advertising tool.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

As explained above, which you apparently lacked the courtesy to respond to, the link references international history. I read WP:UNDUE and didn't see any problems and in fact, it adds not subtracts from offering a worldwide view of the topic.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I responded at length on the talk page of the article. Let's not get WP:PERSONAL here.  See also WP:FOC.   Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If anyone's getting WP:PERSONAL, it's you. If I hadn't gone back and checked the page, I may never have known that the content had been removed. I had the dignified courtesy to respond to you as soon as I did the revert and if the roles had been reversed, I would have responded to you the first time. You didn't do the same, risking an edit war breaking out. A common reason for edit wars is that at least one party does not respond to comments. Why do you think talk pages exist? For fun? No, they exist so that people can discuss the matter. The only reason I came here instead of an article talk page is because it originally involved two articles. See, I am actually open to explaining any edit I do. You'd be more helpful in future if you could do the same.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comments, sorry. When I edited Twinings, the edit summary said to see the talk page, and the talk page had a lengthy response to you.  Obviously you found that.  If you are interested in improving that encyclopedia article (see WP:FOC), I warmly encourage you to join the discussion on that article's talk page.  Please do not respond on this page.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Noun phrases vs. proper names
The name of a scientific theory is a proper name and should be capitalized. Ditto with the title of an article. Quit reverting my work because it's counterproductive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.180.4 (talk • contribs)
 * That's not the policy in MOS:CAPS. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And this is helpful too, for psychology usage.   Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Bad warning
Try again, only this time warn the person who added the spamlink, not the one who removed it. 69.181.253.230 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, and remove the spam link that you returned to the article. 69.181.253.230 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * An apology and removal of the warning would be appropriate as well. 69.181.253.230 (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the spam that Logical Cowboy re-inserted. Next time you can just remove it yourself ip. You are also allowed to remove any warnings from your talk page too yourself. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 21:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks better if the person who issued the warning in error removes it with an acknowledgement that it was a bad warning, don't you agree? 69.181.253.230 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I also question why the automatic level 3 warning for a single instance. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, thanks for letting me know. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Butlins
Why did you revert the changes I made to Butlins? They are all correct. I know alot about Butlins, do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.248.241.172 (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Chair RFPP
I saw this declined RFPP, and went to the article in question, to see what was going on. The page is currently covered under Pending Changes, which means that all of this vandalism will not appear in the "public" version of the page (ie, the version for non-logged in users), so semi protection wouldn't have been required, even if the vandalism rate was much higher. If you're not aware of what PC is, WP:PC should help. It is a very confusing system though! Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 16:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou
thanks for reverting the vandalism of my user page by an IP user. Appreciated. Vanguard Scot 04:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"I am the reference"
Hi, you cut out an excellent section I added to tips(gratuity), subsection Mexico and returned it to the brief, highly inaccurate prior, terse comment. You required I place a reference. I am the reference. This is a cultural practice, it is from life in Mexico and generally applicable to the entire country. You have removed my work and replaced it with the prior innacurate comments from a worldwide website which is clearly *not* a proper reference for the custom of tipping in Mexico, but rather the experience in isolated resorts which cover less that 1% of the tipping in the country and do not reflect the culture (for example, it is more applicable to a retired American couple vacationing in Cancun rather than a couple from Spain or an American of Mexican descent) from a website that itself is not a primary reference and not appropriate, and tries to be everything to everyone without appropriate research. Note please that many of the tips(gratuity) articles with the most complete information are not referenced either, with reliable sources. In such cases I believe you are much better off keeping detailed, informative, unbiased text such as mine and marking it [reference needed] rather than putting some one size fits all reference with little relevance just to mislead the readership with the suggestion you have a reference when it is not salient to the article. Hope this is where you wanted the message you sent me replied to, as I am not well versed in messaging on Wiki but do appreciate is very much as a resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.128.211 (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've responded on your talk page. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of edits
Hi Logical Cowboy,

I noticed you had taken down the edits I had made on various university and college pages. I am assuming is it in regards to this section of the Wikipedia advertising policy. I was wondering if you could let me know how I would go about adding this information in without it being categorized as an advertisement? I'm not trying to word these sections to appear commercial in any way shape or form.

To provide you a bit of background information, we are a school endorsed and partnered service that handles the off-campus housing for over 100 different college and university campuses across North America. Our service is entirely free to students, faculty members and staff, and I'm not trying to make the edits appear to be commercial in any way shape or form. I am simply trying to create awareness for this service as many school pages have sections on either student life or housing.

For the edits I made I provided links to the official school webpages showing our partnership and affiliation with the school as proof.

Could you please direct me as to how I would appropriately word this in order for it to be approved to go online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachpajtasz (talk • contribs) 17:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't know of any appropriate way for you to advertise your company on Wikipedia. Please read WP:COI.  I'm sure there are many other outlets available to you that permit advertising.  As a suggestion, why don't you advertise on Facebook?  Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Not advertising, or anything commercial
Hi Logical Cowboy,

May I reiterate that this is NOT advertising. The edits I have made are school-endorsed and a partnered service that is entirely free to students. The content I am trying to add in is pertinent to the student life and housing sections found on many college and university pages. If linking back to our website is an issue I can remove the links, however I reassure you this is NOT advertising.

I would understand why you removed these sections if they were explicitly advertising a commercial service that produces monetary gain, however the edits I'm trying to make are simply referencing the off-campus housing made available to students at a given institution. I've included links to the college and university pages which prove the validity of our partnership. If I were to write these edits in more 'objective prose' would that be considered acceptable?

I'm not sure how I should move forward with this, as I don't want you to flag my account or continue to remove my edits, however this is something I feel belongs in the sections I've mentioned. I firmly believe my edits do not constitute as a form of advertising or soap-boaxing, and I kindly request that you reconsider your stance on removing these edits. I would be glad to reword them in anyway shape or form.

Please advise me how to move forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachpajtasz (talk • contribs) 18:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Places4students is a commercial service. You have identified yourself as working for this company.  According to the COI rules on Wikipedia, you shouldn't be promoting your own company.  See WP:NOPR.


 * If you want advice from the community, I'd suggest posting here: WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachpajtasz (talk • contribs) 18:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)