Talk:Sweetest Day/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

General cleanup

I'm doing some general cleanup here to tighten up the article per the FA guidelines. My hope is to eventually get this into shape to be a FA or at least a GA considering the fact that several news stories were written around Sweetest Day and they appear to have used this article as a starting point.--Isotope23 18:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Considering that several news articles have referenced this article, perhaps you should stop editing out the facts:

Here is the complete New York Times article from October 8, 1922:

CANDY DAY TO SPREAD SWEETNESS SATURDAY

Stores Manufacturing on Premises Are to Give Souvenirs of product.

Candy day will be celebrated throughout the United States on Saturday next. The Confectioners' and Ice Cream Manufacturers' Protective Association announced yesterday that it has completed plans for popularizing the day in New York. There are about 1,800 candy stores in this city, and about 550 are members of the association and manufacture most of the candy they sell.

In every one of the members' stores special displays will be arranged, and each customer will receive souvenirs, E. A. G. Intemann Jr., President of the association said. Pa, Ma, and the kiddies will all be supplied with a piece of home-made candy, mostly in the form of peppermint sticks. There has been so much interest manifest among confectioners and such enthusiasm over candy day that the association has offered prizes for the best display of candy manufactured on the premises and for the most artistic piece of candy manufactured. Mr. Intemann said that the candy entered in the competition would, in his opinion, be masterpieces of the candymaking art.

"Let Candy Day be a time when everyone feels young again," he said. "Everybody likes candy, and we all want to make the day one of happiness for all; a day to bring back the memory of the time when a pilgrimage to the candy store for a stick of peppermint or a hunk of molasses taffy was an event to be looked forward to. I recall even now the childish pleasure I derived from a visit to the little store in our block and the pride with which I returned home attached to a stick of candy.

"I met a man the other day who said when he heard of Candy Day that it recalled just those things to his mind, and he started out to see whether he could still find the particular kind of candy that used to delight him. He did, and so it is not so very far-fetched to say that Candy Day will revive our youth.

"The association wants to see Candy Day firmly established, and the public can rest assured that, so far as this organization is concerned, the day will not be made an excuse for gouging. Prices will remain the same as on every other day. What we do want, however, is to see every man, woman and child enjoy candy on next Saturday."

Although Candy Day was instituted in 1915, the confectioners made no effort to celebrate it. This was because of the war, and later because of the sugar situation. Saturday, Mr. Intemann says, will be New York's first real Candy Day.

• Sweetest Day/Candy Day ads for October 14, 1922 have so far been located in the New York Times, The Buffalo Evening News, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Cleveland Press, and The Chicago Daily News.

Why not edit these facts into the article. Miracleimpulse 17:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, the fact that several news articles have referred to this article is exactly why I started cleaning it up to meet a higher standard of writing per FA & GA. The source you've stated above is already mentioned in the article (and is something you removed eariler today in your reversion). Going into the level of detail of incorporating the minutae of this into the article is unecessary and takes this article further away from style guidelines (and relevance I might add as evidenced by the anon comment above). Mention of the fact that they apparently tried to institute it in 1915 could be mentioned , but really that is the only pertinent thingsI see from that article other than mentioning that it happened. On a completely unrelated note, I'm not so sure a cut and paste job of that article is allowable even on the Talk Page. Anyone know if NYT retains copyright on their earlier works or if they've released them into the public domain and simply charge to query the archive?--Isotope23 17:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Anything published in 1922 is long out of copyright if it ever was copyrighted in the first place. Before 1977 nothing was copyrighted unless it had a copyright notice and it was fairly uncommon to copyright ordinary news articles. Even if it was copyrighted, the copyright expired in 28 years unless renewed during the last of those years, and most copyrights were not renewed. Even if it was renewed, it expired once and for all 56 years from the original copyright notice, until the law changed in 1978. 67.117.130.181 15:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good to know... thanks. I knew anything prior to '22 is PD, but I wasn't sure what the law was on renewing a copyright.--Isotope23 16:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Suppression and management of information

There is such an obvious effort to suppress and manage information about Sweetest Day on this page it is turning Wikipedia into a joke. Miracleimpulse 18:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• WP:AGF Miracleimpulse. The edits I and others have made to the article have been to cleanup the original research, POV, and indescriminate information that has been added to the article. You are the sole editor who disagrees with the consensus that has been established here time and time again. As for the photos, I've already stated numerous times that these should be in a Wikicommons Gallery with an link back to the article. I even saved one of them from deletion. How does that qualify as suppression?--Isotope23 18:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Isotope. What a joke. While adding facts and information and photos to this page, my user page has been deleted and I have been blocked 3 times from editing. You have deleted most of the facts about the origins of Sweetest Day and sanitized the rest so that this article looks more like a promotional piece than an historical record. The Herbert Birch Kingston verisimilitude has been disproven about 12 different ways and yet it remains the lead sentence in the article. Advertising websites with no verification of "facts" are being used as references. Promotional statements from trade organizations are included in the article. What's happening on this page is making Wikipedia look like one big joke. Miracleimpulse 18:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you have a problem with me or my conduct here, please feel free to log an ARBCOM case against me. The article talk page is the wrong forum for this.--Isotope23 18:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image removal / vandalism

Despite your contention this is vandalism Miracleimpulse, this image is a large, grainy photo of a person with no strongly demonstrated sourced notability in regards to this topic. He was the chairman of the Sweetest Day Committee in Cleveland, 1921. This image adds nothing of real value to this article. At risk of this becoming a mantra I will say again: this belongs in a Wikicommons image gallery... not in the article. WP:AGF, but I find it interesting you are suddenly reinserting this image into the article now that it has been nominated for deletion as orphaned fair use. The other images removed by User:Tregoweth I don't have a big problem with. They are smaller and don't mess up the asthetic of the article. Having one or at most two images for historical context isn't a problem, but the two images I've left in the article at least have more relevance to the topic. Hartzell is just too insignificant to justify an image in the article.--Isotope23 04:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Of course your edits to this page are vandalism Isotope! You have added virtually nothing to the article: you only remove things. You edit out facts which are uncomplimentary to Industry like Sweetest Day headlines from The New York Times which read "To Exploit Gift-Giving." C. C. Hartzell is quite significant to the origins of Sweetest Day. He supervised the giveaway of 10,000 boxes of candy at Cleveland's orphanages and charitable institutions in order to create a newsworthy event which would gain the attention of Clevelanders and help induce them to observe Sweetest Day. C. C. Hartzell also crowned the first Queen of Sweetest Day, 82-year-old Vera Sissons. C. C Hartzell also chaired the committee of 12 candymakers who arranged the details of Cleveland's first Sweetest Day in the year, and this is the fact you keep editing out of the article, because it contradicts the industry spin that Herbert Birch Kingston is the founder of Sweetest Day. Why don't you post a photo of Herbert Birch Kingston in the article. Why don't you introduce one single sourced fact which credits Herbert Birch Kingston with the founding of Sweetest Day. There must be one somewhere. American Greetings was allegedly right there in Cleveland when the first Sweetest Days were promoted by industry in 1921 and 1922. Surely they took a snapshot of the industry icon who masterminded this multi-billion-dollar promotion. And if you believe the images related to Sweetest Day belong in a Wikicommons gallery, why haven't you created it. Miracleimpulse 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a sense of deja vu here... we've had this conversation before. That removal is called editing. I've edited out original research, POV pushing, and content that takes away from this being a WP:GOOD article, specifically trivial unnecessary details of the exact historical celebrations . I edited the New York Times section because it was overly bloated, focused on unimportant minutae, and overall detracted from the quality of the article. Contrary to your contention above

"C. C Hartzell also chaired the committee of 12 candymakers who arranged the details of Cleveland's first Sweetest Day in the year, and this is the fact you keep editing out of the article..."

the article clearly states, "the first Sweetest Day was planned by a committee of 12 confectioners chaired by candymaker C. C. Hartzell." Hartzell is clearly mentioned in the article in reference to his chairmanship of the Sweetest Day committee; but he simply is not significant enough for their to be a photo of him in the article (much less a grainy, poor quality one). The rest of your post has been extensively covered here already in the archives. The article never states HBK definitively created Sweetest Day... it states the creation is attributed to him and this is sourced. As for why I have not created a gallery, these are your images that you've uploaded Miracleimpulse. I have to say that my interest level in this topic is not so great that I want to spend my time setting up an image gallery. I'm simply advising you that if you are interested it retaining these photos you should set them up into an image gallery.--Isotope23 14:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think all three of the images should be removed. They are grainy, poor quality, poorly cropped, taken from a side angle, and appear to be taken from a camera phone. These are not the kind of images that an encyclopedia article should have. Unless we can get properly scanned images of these newspaper articles, they should remain out of the article. Not a dog 12:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

This article is under attack by industry spindoctors. All content including linked images should be protected. Miracleimpulse 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Under attack by industry spindoctors? You can't be serious. Whatever. For those coming here via the request for protection, this discussion would probably also be iluminating: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sweetest Day Hoax. Not a dog 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Protection for this page and all images has been requested here. Miracleimpulse 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Images themselves can't be protected. And Not a dog and Tregoworth aren't unknown vandalizers, they've been here for some time. Anom8trw8 00:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand how Miracleimpulse feels this page is "under attack by industry spindoctors" when the lead paragraph notes the following:

Sweetest Day has also been referred to as a "concocted promotion"[3] created by the candy industry solely to increase sales of candy. Persistent claims have also been made that Sweetest Day was manufactured by the American Greetings Company or Hallmark Cards in order to boost sales.

And it later is described as a Hallmark holiday, a disparaging term. Seems to me that Micracleimpulse is mostly upset that her/his original research (images, etc) isn't being included in this article. Am I missing something here? Not a dog 13:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Paranoia

I think many of Miracleimpulses points are valid. The thesis that Sweetest Day was concocted by candy companies is credible and cited material supporting it should stay in the article. However, Miracleimpulse is being excessively paranoid towards the other editors. I don't think any of them are industry spin doctors. Does anybody here work for any candy or card related businesses?

Anyway, the "spin doctors" are right that the article should not be cluttered with dozens of photos of old-time candy tycoons. I do think the two currently-present newspaper shots are useful as illustrations and should stay until replaced by better versions. As for verifiability, news articles from the Cleveland Plain Dealer are far more qualified as reliable sources than promotional websites of candy and card companies. Also, newspaper articles are not primary sources by definition. Ask any history teacher. Primary sources are stuff like original documents from inside a company. That census record of that guy having a mortgage is a primary source. Newspaper articles are secondary sources, written by newspaper reporters based on original documents and interviews which are the primary sources. And unsourced materials on random web sites is basically crap.

It seems to me that you people are edit warring because you're mad at each other. Stuff is getting removed or edited not because there's anything wrong with it but only because the "other side" put it in. How about if you all take a break for a while and then try to approach this thing in a calmer fashion, making best efforts to be excellent to one another.

67.117.130.181 08:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments 67.117.130.181. Yes, it is my belief that most of the other editors of this article are spinning the article in favor of industry. This opinion is not a personal attack; I believe they are very good at what they are doing. Before my arrival on the scene here, none of them had ever edited the Sweetest Day article, and the article read almost exactly like the blurb on the back of a Hallmark Sweetest Day greeting card. One thing I noticed was that most of these editors edit Wikipedia rather relentlessly, almost as if to hide their true purpose in editing Wikipedia. Many of them have also followed me around to each site I have edited to reverse my edits, and they even had my user page (which I did not create) deleted. Now Not a dog has nominated virtually every image uploaded for the Sweetest Day article, including those which have remained on the page for months for deletion. The two images which have been allowed to stay in the article contain links to nearly 30 other images regarding Sweetest Day, many of which have public domain captions, news articles and editorials about the origins of Sweetest Day attached. These images are not cluttering up the Sweetest Day page in any way, yet they are there for interested readers to review if they so choose. If a picture speaks a thousand words, Not a dog is attempting to edit nearly 30,000 words out of the Sweetest Day article. Why would anyone wish to limit someone's access to such an abundance of available factual information? As stated before, improved quality images are on the way; I contacted The Cleveland Plain Dealer today seeking their assistance with images for this article. Not a dog should cease his attack and allow the new images time to arrive. The Sweetest Day article also currently contains at least three verisimilitudes, which are highly deceptive cleverly-worded promotional statements, which these editors insist must remain in the article. These verisimilitudes are all sourced to websites which advertise Sweetest Day using no real reference actually sourcing the statements. Finally, if you read the former edits of the Sweetest Day page, you will see a very clear pattern of information suppression and management. My observation of this pattern is not paranoia. It is perfectly justified and correct. And for the record, I am not angry at anyone: they are all anonymous and they are just doing their job.

Thank you again for your comments 67.117.130.181. Your input is appreciated. Miracleimpulse 11:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I have no connection to Sweetest Day or its inudstries in any way, I don't care about Sweetest Day, and I don't really care about this article other than ensuring it meets encyclopedic standards. You'll notice my only substantive edit was a good faith efforts to keep this article as encyclopedic as possible, reverting what I consider a possibly bad faith edit on the part of Miracelimpulse: ([1].

My nominating photos for deletion has nothing to do with this article per se, but rather are in accordance with the image deletion policy: they are all of extremely low quality (LQ), and except for the two that appear here, they are all orphaned (OR), (including many that make fair use claims that must be used in articles to be valid). Not a dog 11:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I consider Miracleimpulse's insinuation that I "edit Wikipedia rather relentlessly, almost as if to hide their true purpose in editing Wikipedia" an unacceptable and unbased personal attack, similar to accusing me of being some kind of "spindoctor". I've been editing here for months, and just stumbled upon this article recently. Whatever. Not a dog 11:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a dog you have nominated for deletion every image uploaded for the article. These are 85-year-old images to begin with, reproduced from photocopies using an Apple iSight camera. Grainy? Yes. Useless? No. To my knowledge these images are not reproduced anywhere else. The images also contain much information about the origins of Sweetest Day which is all in the public domain. Inclusion of these images in Wikipedia helps make Wikipedia as exceptional as it is. They are not cluttering up the article. If you don't really care about this article, please remove your deletion requests and allow the new images time to arrive. Thank you and best regards, for real. Miracleimpulse 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said the images were "useless." Consensus apparently seems to be that they don't belong in the article - they are orphaned. Wikipedia is not free web space to archive photos that are not in use in articles (but perhaps Wikipedia:Commons is the place you should look to place them). They have been validly nominated for deletion as LQ and OR. Please not that they are only nominated - perhaps consensus of other editors in the deletion process will determine that they should remain.Not a dog 12:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment to 67.117.130.181 I don't think anyone has suggested that sourced material currently in the article (from Cleveland Plains Dealer for example) be removed from the article; I speak only for myself but I certainly wouldn't want to see this happen. Any information from websites has been carefully worded so it says exactly what can be factually stated based on that source. Remember, ordinary claims require ordinary sources and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. As for this edit war being because people are "mad at each other", I don't think that is necessarily the case. I certainly am not mad at anyone, though I must say that User:Miracleimpulse's consistant personal attacks are growing tiresome. This is simply about creating a fair, WP:NPOV, balanced article and I think the version currently in the namespace is the closest we've gotten to this goal.--Isotope23 14:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

While I have not been involved in the history of this dispute, I would like to state my agreement with Isotope. The current version seems properly cited and consistent with Wikipedia policies. Not a dog 14:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I would suggest there is a legitimate consensus regarding this article... Addhoc 15:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous industry spin doctors on Wikipedia

There is every reason to believe that anonymous industry spin doctors are editing the Sweetest Day page here at Wikipedia and participating in this discussion. For more than a year now there has been an ongoing discussion on the Yahoo American Greetings message board about Sweetest Day. Currently the thread has 263 messages in it. Now check out this Yahoo profile. This individual posts regularly on the Yahoo American Greetings message board under various screen names, and it is my belief that this individual is also a participant or even several participants in this ongoing discussion about Sweetest Day here at Wikipedia. Until a few days ago, the photo on anonymous_spin_doctor's Yahoo profile was this image of 4 Sweetest Day Founders. I believe they decided to swap the image for the sexy lady when they realized I might link this talk page with the American Greetings message board to make my point about spin doctors operating on Wikipedia. One way to resolve this problem is for the editors who care enough about the Sweetest Day article to make their identities public as I have. Or perhaps Wikipedia can investigate the issue and determine who is a spin doctor or possible sock puppet. It is never my intention to make a personal attack on anyone here at Wikipedia. However, I would be remiss in my responsibility as a Wikipedian if I did not bring my concerns about this issue to the attention of other Wikipedia editors. Be aware: The spin doctors are here. And their purpose is to manage and suppress information about this topic in order to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool in the promotion of Sweetest Day. Miracleimpulse 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You said "This individual posts regularly on the Yahoo American Greetings message board under various screen names" - what is your evidence, and how does that relate to any editor here? If you are concerned that a particular user has a conflict of interest, you can try to present your evidence at WP:CHECK (but they seem pretty strict about not doing fishing expeditions.) But, I'm curious as to your statement that you have made your identity public, since there is no such revelation on your empty user page. Not a dog 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He thinks that because he's given his real name on several occasions (Robb Thomas) that that's somehow full disclosure, thus anyone who doesn't also give their full name is in cahoots with the greeting card industry. It appears that Mr. Thomas is also a creator of greeting cards, or at least he has quite a collection on his website, which was linked to on one of the archive talk pages. --75.117.248.108 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems he's also created a gallery of all those webcam images of old newspaper stories on the origin of Sweetest Day [2]. Not a dog 04:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(Oh, and jsut as a meta-comment: the fact there are 263 posts to a Yahoo Group dedicated "Sweetest Fraud" makes me chuckle a bit.) Not a dog 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, that profile you linked to indicates the last change was in August, so unless they don't count changing photos as a "change" I'm confused as to your claim that the picture was just changed a few days ago (and what it is supposed to insinuate anyway). Plus, the image you claim was associated with that profile (which you just uploaded to WP [3]) is obviously taken at the same time and with the same camera as the other images you personally created and uploaded to wikipedia (ie, [4]). So, how did this Yahoo person (who you claim used to have that photo on their profile) gain access to that image, especially since it doesn't match precisely to the other one's you've uploaded? I'm very confused here. Please help me understand. Not a dog 00:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Miracleimpulse are you seriously suggesting that some individual created a Wikipedia account (or multiple accounts), edited numerous articles, all the while waiting for you to come here and edit the Sweetest Day article, so they could launch into a concerted effort of sockpuppeting to thwart your edits here? That is a rather machiavellian prospect...--Isotope23 01:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fanatics always seem to think that the fact that other editors don't accept all of their obsessive-compulsive original research proves that they're all on the payroll of their arch enemies and part of a massive conspiracy to suppress The Truth. *Dan T.* 04:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of advertising statements and sources

Would someone please remove all statements sourced to advertising websites, including Retail Confectioners International and The Romantic.com. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a free advertising website. Miracleimpulse 23:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The quote from RCI is used to give thier side of the story, which is essential to make the article NPOV. TheRomantic.com isn't an "advertising site", it is a romance advice site. --Transfinite 23:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The purpose of both websites is to sell products for Sweetest Day. None of the statements on the websites are sourced in any way. Are you saying we need lies in the Sweetest Day article to balance the truth? Not very encyclopedic. Miracleimpulse 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not in the position to call the RCI quote a "lie" without a source directly saying that. As for the external links, I've been surfing around TheRomantic.com, and besides the awful web design, they do sell lots of stuff, and link to other people who sell stuff. They seem a bit commericial to stay in External Links, and that site isn't used to cite anything in the article. I'm strongly considering removing it. The link to RCI should stay, though; it is used to cite the "official" story, which should stay in the article, even if you think it is full of dirty lies. --Transfinite 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• The RCI quote should stay. I've removed theromantic.com and replaced it with the American Greetings link that was previously in External links. I also removed the 2 extraneous images that are not directly pertinent to the article. These should be in a Wikicommons Gallery. By the way, the Sweetest Day committee image is better than the one that was there before.--Isotope23 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• The statements about Sweetest Day on the websites of American Greetings, Hallmark and Retail Confectioners International are carefully written highly deceptive verisimilitudes created to help sell Sweetest Day products. These statements are not sourced on any of the three websites because they cannot be sourced: they are deceptive statements created by marketing/advertising departments in order to sell products. As blatant and highly deceptive promotional statements, they should not be included in any encyclopedia article (even under external links) unless identified as such. Oh and Transfinite, I never said the statements were "dirty lies." They are the cleanest lies money can buy. Miracleimpulse 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Digital scan images

• Isotope, "old folks" like Vera Sissons and newsboys like "Jimmy" are already mentioned in the article, and their role (they were used as promotional tools) in the creation of Sweetest Day should be further detailed in the article. You guys better brace yourselves: there are a lot more digital scans on the way...this will ultimately become a factual article about Sweetest Day. Miracleimpulse 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Including an excessive number of images, particularly with respect to the overall article length, would give undue weight to one aspect of the matter and would be inappropriate. I continue to be concerned by your seemingly unceasing desire to edit Wikipedia only with respect to this one narrow topic or group of topics; you remain a single purpose account and your conduct continues to be troublesome. Newyorkbrad 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I had an edit conflict here, but I agree wholeheartedly with what Newyorkbrad just said. Those images add nothing of value to the article; they are extraneous in nature. Your rationale for including those images because "old folks" and "newsboys" are mentioned in the article is faulty Miracleimpulse. We don't add a picture of Cleveland in the article just because the city is mentioned there. Extraneous images that are related to the topic should be in a Wikicommons gallery.--Isotope23 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)--Isotope23 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Adjusted image wording

Not a dog, I changed "created" to "planned" because the Cleveland Plains Dealer article never credits those 12 men with creation of the day, just planning and executing it the 1921 Observance. In fact, Schmidt in his book Consumer Rites: The Buying and Selling of American Holidays traces the observance back to 1910, which would suggest the "true" creator(s) still have not been found if Schmidt is correct and at this juncture I think it is still original research & an inference to call those men the creators as no reliable sources have referred to them as such.--Isotope23 19:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That adjustment to my wording seems to make sense. THanks. Not a dog 19:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Meisterchef's concern

I've been watching this article for some time with interest. I want to point out some things I've noticed.

1. I've noticed multiple "NPOV" disputes on this article. I need someone to explain to me how factual information, photographs, and related newspaper articles going as far back as 1921 can have a "point of view" attached to them. If the facts about a specific issue are condemning, then they are condemning. It IS NOT a point of view issue just because someone pointed it out. Point of view as it relates to photos and newspaper articles from eighty years ago is not relative, as the photographers and journalists responsible for the photos and articles are not currently editing Wikipedia.

2. There were multiple complaints about the quality of some of the uploaded images. I noticed that the images were replaced with higher resolution scans as requested by multiple users, and subsequently deleted without a trace or a debate. Can someone explain?

3. Certain users on here have entirely too much time on their hands. Edits get reverted sometimes within MINUTES of their occurance. It does, in fact, makes someone wonder if there are people on wikipedia who do this for a living. Who exactly sits in front of their computer and mashes f5 while looking at an article about such a seemingly insignificant holiday? People with stake in said holiday, thats who.

4. User: Miracleimpulse's information seems completely factual. I don't understand why factual and highly relevant information would be removed from the supported topic in an encyclopedia article. Is it really possible to have "too much" information about something? He seems to be the only supporter of facts editing this article. I haven't yet witnessed a single person disputing his content, only his format. I see multiple users supporting the removal of content, and only one supporting the addition of content. Why? There is absolutely no reason to delete the content unless you have something to suppress. Suppression of information is not permitted on Wikipedia. A small group of editors is talking about arbcom-ing someone for posting facts. It's not right, and its not the spirit of free information upon which Wikipedia is based. Stop focusing on the syntax and format and start focusing on the information in question.

What is going on here?

meisterchef 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Actually, the primary issue was the original research Miracleimpulse added to this article; i.e. the conclusions he drew and added to this article were not actually sourced by the material he was using for a source. These conclusions also had a distinct WP:POV. I invite you to read through the archives for a full explaination of the issues involved here.

2. Again, this is all in the archives... but long story short, consensus was that these images add nothing of real value to the article and should be in a Wikicommons Gallery (and in fact the images in question were removed from the article before the quality issue came up; they were deleted because of the quality however).

3. Please read WP:AGF. This sort of unfounded and seemingly bad faith reasoning isn't helpful to Wikipedia. I personally have no stake in this observance. I don't even particularly like it (in fact I refuse to celebrate it). I do however have a strong dedication to the concept of Wikipedia and I'd like to see every article, no matter how insignificant, be the best quality article it can possibly be.

4. Please read through the Archives... there is much dispute of the content Miracleimpulse added to the article as much of it is original research. There are plenty of good reasons to edit content that is trivial or detracts from the overall flow of the article; in fact there are some criteria for what constitues a WP:GOOD article and you can on the talk page that I started editing it to get the article in line with those criteria a while back. Remember, this is an encyclopedia; we don't just reprint exactly what is in the source material. There are numerous cites in the article so anyone interested is free to go and read the source material if they wish. The article as it stands is the WP:CONSENSUS version of the article that is probably the most balanced and neutral version of the article that has ever been at this namespace.--Isotope23 17:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with Isotope's response & assessment. (And watching pages for activity is as simple as clicking the "watch" tab at the top). Not a dog 17:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The images in question were deleted by User:JzG. The deletion logs for those images are here and here. I think another debate about those images would be a good idea, since the quality concerns have been taken care of. I'm gonna write a long "Why I don't think there is a massive conspiracy to spin this article" post a little later, but suffice it to say, I don't think there is a conspiracy here. --Transfinite 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, I hadn't even noticed they were deleted. I thought we were talking about "Image:Jimmy Observes Sweetest Day.jpg" and "Image:Vera Sissons First Queen of Sweetest Day.jpg" which I'd removed from the article as being irrelevant to the text. As it stands I've removed the image links for the deleted images for the time being. I don't object to having a couple of pertinant images in the article, but the bulk of images should be collected in a Wikicommons Gallery and should really be left free of the editorialising that was done on some of the original uploads.--Isotope23 19:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know those were up for deletion. I'm not sure if they were the some ones listed on that batch from Nov 29 that is references in teh deletion log. I agree with Isotope that having those two images (but only those two, generally) helped provide some historical context for the creation of SD. Not a dog 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just checked, and those images weren't listed for deletion as noted by JzG. Perhaps we should ask for undeletion? Not a dog 19:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just asked JzG about it: User_talk:JzG#Sweetest_Day_images. Not a dog 20:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

He undeleted the images and I've reverted to the version of the article with the image links.--Isotope23 20:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspicion of sockpuppetry re: meisterchef / miracleimpulse

It is apparent to me that meisterchef is a sockpuppet of miracleimpulse. As evidence, for example, note that each of the points set forth by meisterchef are simply inversions of the same old rants that miracleimpulse has been reiterating over the past six months. It may be advisable to request a sysop to confirm whether this is indeed the case (perhaps by examining IP records, web access logs and timestamps); and, if so, to take appropriate measures to prevent further disruption by the puppeteer. —Ryanaxp 16:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry to disappoint you Ryanaxp, but meisterchef is not a sock puppet or an alternate account. Miracleimpulse 16:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would add that this exact same message was posted to WP:ANI by 68.60.17.31 (talk · contribs) [5]. This IP's only other edit [6], which was to correct a spelling error by Eyetomhas (talk · contribs), who's only edit was also in support of Miracleimpulse. Not sure if these are socks, but Miracleimpulse does have a known history of using multiple account on other online forums (see unanswered concern expressed at User talk:Miracleimpulse#Multiple accounts?) Not a dog 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's all sort of a moot point because meisterchef was indef blocked and his unblock request denied.--Isotope23 16:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Gallery

I noticed that Miracleimpulse, created a Commons category, so I did the rest of the work and created a gallery for all the extraneous images. It's linked in the aritcle now.--Isotope23 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)