Warburton62
Strongbow Cider
editPlease learn that details on the production methods used to make a product are not POV. If you think that my edit requires refinement then please do that rather than just revert it for incorrect reasons. Feebtlas 13:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not revert the edits of more experienced editors without discussion. Feebtlas 13:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strongbow does claim to be real cider (it claims to be first produced in the 19th century before these modern processes existed), and it doesn't matter if it doesn't claim that because my edit describes the process in which it is made. Feebtlas 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't claim that my edits are of greater value, just that they are in line with wikipedia rules and go along with the general consensus. You will note that on articles for Kraft cheese it rightly states that it is processed cheese even if there is no Kraft advert that claims their cheese is made in any traditional method. Strongbow is a processed cider produced in a non traditional way as described by my edit. Feebtlas 13:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- As before, Strongbow does claim to be produced in the traditional methods for cider (claims to be first produced 150 years ago before these new processes would have existed). Describing the production methods of something maintains a NPOV, and describing something as being processed or not made to traditional methods is also NPOV also, especially if the producer claims some sort of traditional method is being used. If you consider part of my edit to be POV then please state which and if possible remove that part rather than revert the whole thing. Please also considering that reverting an article more than 3 times in any 24 hour period will result in a block. I would also appreciate if you signed your posts on my talk page with four ~. Feebtlas 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- With regards to the 3RR it does not matter if you consider your edits justified or explained and it does not matter if other people consider them justified or explained. You have repeatedly reverted this article to your point of view and removed legitimate information that fits in with the rules of wikipedia. You have not answered any of my questions relating to the content of my edits and have not explained why you believe they are POV or why you have reverted them. I have no real cider agenda and am not a regular drinker of cider. But I believe that Strongbow is a processed cider produced using non traditional methods as described in my edit. What is it exactly that you disagree with over my edits? Do you think my description of the production of Strongbow is wrong or is there some other reason you keep reverting it? Feebtlas 14:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Once again it does not matter if you or anyone else considers your reverts to be justified, they still violate the 3RR unless they are considered to be reverts of simple vandalism etc. Read up on that policy if you are still unsure of this. Mass produced beer would not be considered processed because it is produced in much the same way as real ale and the difference is that it is then pasteurised, Strongbow is made using apple concentrate and sugar rather than pressed apple juice and that is what makes it processed. I described the difference and provided a link to a website which gives the difference between 'real cider' and commercial processed ciders so your reasoning that it would not be understood by most readers is invalid. As for your comment that you "have registered a disagreement with you contribution", what you actually did was completely ignore my attempts at communication until about your second revert and then repeatedly ignore my calls for you to explain exactly what you disagree with in my edits until your most recent message on my talk page. There is a time and a place for everything - processed food included - and if you consider the term processed to mean that something is of poor quality then you have to ask yourself why you would be drinking it anyway. I consider processed to refer only to it's method of production. Feebtlas 14:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the processes you described as being used in mass produced beer are also used in the production of real ale. Cask and non cask beer are produced in basically the same way and the major difference between the two is what happens after production. With Strongbow and other processed ciders they are produced in a very different way to begin with. As for the 3RR, you have shown yet again that you have almost zero understanding of it, and I assume your nasty remark that I need to read up on it is yet another attempt by you to turn this dispute in to some sort of childish battle of insults. I have no more interest in dealing with you on this subject, you are totally unwilling to listen to any viewpoint other than your own and completely ignore wikipolicy and accepted practice in your editing. I have informed another editor of this dispute and hopefully he will be able to sort this out. Feebtlas 15:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Once again it does not matter if you or anyone else considers your reverts to be justified, they still violate the 3RR unless they are considered to be reverts of simple vandalism etc. Read up on that policy if you are still unsure of this. Mass produced beer would not be considered processed because it is produced in much the same way as real ale and the difference is that it is then pasteurised, Strongbow is made using apple concentrate and sugar rather than pressed apple juice and that is what makes it processed. I described the difference and provided a link to a website which gives the difference between 'real cider' and commercial processed ciders so your reasoning that it would not be understood by most readers is invalid. As for your comment that you "have registered a disagreement with you contribution", what you actually did was completely ignore my attempts at communication until about your second revert and then repeatedly ignore my calls for you to explain exactly what you disagree with in my edits until your most recent message on my talk page. There is a time and a place for everything - processed food included - and if you consider the term processed to mean that something is of poor quality then you have to ask yourself why you would be drinking it anyway. I consider processed to refer only to it's method of production. Feebtlas 14:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- With regards to the 3RR it does not matter if you consider your edits justified or explained and it does not matter if other people consider them justified or explained. You have repeatedly reverted this article to your point of view and removed legitimate information that fits in with the rules of wikipedia. You have not answered any of my questions relating to the content of my edits and have not explained why you believe they are POV or why you have reverted them. I have no real cider agenda and am not a regular drinker of cider. But I believe that Strongbow is a processed cider produced using non traditional methods as described in my edit. What is it exactly that you disagree with over my edits? Do you think my description of the production of Strongbow is wrong or is there some other reason you keep reverting it? Feebtlas 14:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- As before, Strongbow does claim to be produced in the traditional methods for cider (claims to be first produced 150 years ago before these new processes would have existed). Describing the production methods of something maintains a NPOV, and describing something as being processed or not made to traditional methods is also NPOV also, especially if the producer claims some sort of traditional method is being used. If you consider part of my edit to be POV then please state which and if possible remove that part rather than revert the whole thing. Please also considering that reverting an article more than 3 times in any 24 hour period will result in a block. I would also appreciate if you signed your posts on my talk page with four ~. Feebtlas 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't claim that my edits are of greater value, just that they are in line with wikipedia rules and go along with the general consensus. You will note that on articles for Kraft cheese it rightly states that it is processed cheese even if there is no Kraft advert that claims their cheese is made in any traditional method. Strongbow is a processed cider produced in a non traditional way as described by my edit. Feebtlas 13:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strongbow does claim to be real cider (it claims to be first produced in the 19th century before these modern processes existed), and it doesn't matter if it doesn't claim that because my edit describes the process in which it is made. Feebtlas 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Strongbow_Cider, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Creationist Phil 16:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Strongbow Cider
edit"Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness." It often happens that a dispute in an article will focus attention, and the article thus becomes stronger. SilkTork 20:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Non-free use disputed for Image:160+quarter+brewery+b&w.gif
edit
|
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:160+quarter+brewery+b&w.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 09:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:Jsesb.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Jsesb.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 08:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fosters pint.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading Image:Fosters pint.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 11:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
File:Fosters pint.jpg listed for deletion
editA file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fosters pint.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 18:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
