User talk:Tanner-Christopher/Archieve 1

Achieve of discussions from February 1,2007 - April 30, 2007

Welcome to WINE
Welcome to the Wine Project! I'm a fairly recent addition but have been getting involved. Look forward to your participation! -- Regards Steve.Moulding 22:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-Winos
Howdy, I was curious if you would be interested in participating in an upcoming Wiki-Winos feature for the Wine Project Newsletter. If you are, take a look at the Interview Questionnaire and feel free to answer any or all of the questions that you like. For reference, you may want to look at how the interview with our last Wiki-Wino (User:Charleenmerced)) went in our Feb 18th newsletter. You might also consider dropping off a nominee for the next Wine Improvement Drive Article. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. That would also be where you would respond to the Wiki-Winos questionnaire. Thanks! AgneCheese/Wine 19:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Zinfandel
Hi Christopher. Here's something you might appreciate:

In praise of Zinfandel

Do you frequently pray, "Forgive me, for I have Zinned?" Well, just how Zinful are you? Are you so absolutely Zinful that your life is full of Zin and your conscience plagued by a multitude of Zins? We are born in Zin, and the effects of original Zin cause us to have Zinful desires. Let's face it, we live in a Zinful world and we are all guilty as Zin! We are often more Zinful than saintly. That's why we often find Zin to be Zinfully delicious. When we ponder the question, "To Zin, or not to Zin?", we inevitably turn to indulgence in Zinful pleasures, especially the "Seven Deadly Zins" (Cardinal Zins). But what the heck, "To err is human, but to Zin is divine!" I can assure you that once you have tasted a good red Zin, you will cease all foolish attempts to become Zinfree, since "Zin is in!"

-- by Fyslee (much indebted to journalists Janis Switzer and Anne Valdespino, Christopher Trela, Ravenswood Winery, Michael~David Vineyards, Bonny Doon Vinyard, ZAP, Shakespeare, Jesus, Moses, Christian theology, Alexander Pope, and no doubt many others.....;-)  -- Fyslee/talk 07:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pointers and a welcome
I noticed that you sign your posts with "christopher tannen" after the ~. Maybe it's intentional, but it really just adds a little string of text after the automatic signature. But the choice is your's, of course.

I've been doing a lot of work on the history of various cuisines. It all began with the humble subtlety (most of it is now entremet) and bloomed out into medieval cuisine. I've worked a bit on related articles like potage, frumenty and sop. I know that pottages are still around, as are entremets, but in different forms, so if you have any information on the modern aspects of these dishes, they would be most welcome additions.

And welcome aboard!

Peter Isotalo 19:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, but...
Your name has suddenly started showing up all over my watch list, and while I'm glad to see someone is paying attention to these food articles, I'm wondering what the point of the attention is - i.e. "rating." "Scrambled eggs" is rated as "start" - um - just where do you see this article going in the future? There's only so much that can be said about scrambled eggs. Granted, the article isn't the best description ever, but - what do you suggest to improve it? Why are you spending your time slapping "ratings" on articles anyway? I probably shouldn't be singling you out to ask this question, but you're the most obvious blip on my radar, so I will. What's the point? Just wondering. Mothperson cocoon 12:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to believe. But here you've mentioned all these interesting possibilities for scrambled eggs, and yet you haven't added them to the article!  So are we going to sit around and wait for someone else to write about eggs in a bag?  Okay, I'm cynical.  I have probably spent too much time here.  I see by your recent history you've been doing a lot of assessing.  I just wish you'd use what is obviously a wealth of knowledge about food to improve the articles, not rate them. But perhaps you're just scouting the grounds at the moment?  I picked "scrambled eggs" as an example, but now I'm wondering - what else do you know?  Whatever.  Thanks for the info.  Benvenuto.  Mothperson cocoon 22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Damn. You went and worked on scrambled eggs.  I didn't mean...but on the other hand, how great is that?  Forgive me - I'm going to have to remove the huevos rancheros thing because huevos rancheros are fried eggs.  But I'm impressed and inspired.  Don't let the old folks (like me)get you down.  You are doing good work.  Mothperson cocoon 09:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Finals
Hey, good luck in Finals! I would love to read your wine paper!-- Char leen mer ced  Talk  17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

Go, go, go!
Many people place these on their user page, but you can keep it here if you don't feel like bragging. Either way, you've deserved it.

Peter Isotalo 18:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Scrambled Eggs (Beatles)) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Charles 03:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I should not have taken this issue to your user page, as a look at the history clearly indicates that your actions were without fault. At first glance, though, the "scrambled eggs" story looks nonsensical.  I am going to recommend its deletion since the issue is already discussed at the Yesterday (song) article.  Forgive my leaping to the wrong conclusion.  ---Charles 04:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, when I looked at the list of your contributions, and your user page, nothing that I saw indicated someone who would, for no known reason, suddenly make up a nonsensical article about a Beatles song. At any rate, I think a redirect would solve the problem best.  Cheers! ---Charles 04:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP Christianity
Hi, I saw your name on the WikiProject Christianity Membership page.

I've made some changes to the WP Christianity main project page, added several sup-project pages, created a few task forces section, and proposed several more possible changes so that we can really start making some serious progress on the project. Please stop by and see my comments on the project talk page here and consider joining a task force or helping out with improving and contributing to our sub-projects. Thanks for your time! Nswinton 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Chef
Thanks for your note on my Talk page. If you will look more closely, you will see that I didn't "blank" anything; I reorganized it. The previous opening paragraph started:
 * Chef is a French term refers to one who cooks professionally.

This is a poor opening for several reasons. First of all, Wikipedia is not a French-English dictionary, so we don't start by saying that it is a "French term"; we start by defining the word in English, and in English, it means a "professional cook", as my language says clearly:
 * A chef is a professional cook.

The old first paragraph continued:
 * Its origins come from a contraction of the French phrase chef de cuisine which refers to the rank in the culinary profession.

I moved the full explanation of the history of the word to the "Word history" section, as it does not belong in the opening paragraph. I also phrased all this more concisely and corrected the style. For example, it doesn't make sense to say "its origins come from": either For o "its origins are..." or "it comes from..." suffices.

I left the section beginning "The title chef" alone. I agree with you that the business about "chef de patrouille" etc. is unnecessary. Please take a look at my latest edit and see what you think. --Macrakis 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I agree that "professional cook" isn't quite right, because there are lots of people who cook for a living (e.g. servants in private houses, cooks in diners, military cooks, school cooks, etc.) and are not considered "chefs", though they are considered "cooks" (including non-professionals like home cooks). The term has changed over time as well, in the OED (documenting 19th-century usage), a "chef" was the male head cook of a large private kitchen, whereas nowadays we mostly think of it as a restaurant cook (whether the head or not). By the way, if you're at BU, say hi to Corky for me. --Macrakis 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest note. I agree that it would be better to reword than to remove, but it is more urgent to remove the copyright violations than to rewrite the article. The article as it stood contained large chunks of text lifted from Davidson with only minor wording changes. This is not allowed under Wikipedia's copyright violation rules, and can get us into trouble. On the other hand, we can rewrite at our leisure.

As for where chefs are found, you probably know more about this than I do. I was rather surprised that Davidson calls a cook in a hamburger joint a "chef". I also would not call the cooks at elementary schools "chefs" (surely the South Park usage is parody?), but maybe I'm not in touch with current usage. --Macrakis 23:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)