User talk:WolverineLawyer

Welcome![edit]

Hello, WolverineLawyer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, visit the Teahouse Q&A forum, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your work in expanding the Pink slime article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy[edit]

I really appreciate all the work you are doing at pink slime but I think it is a mistake to not include the quote. The inquisition from the media/government panel and the position of the company is very well illustrated if you ask me and I feel we should find a place for it. I think if we rewrite any existing passage a second go around can always improve flow and it could fit somewhere else in the article. I noticed you said it was already covered but I am not sure where you meant, would you mind explaining in more detail your point of view and reasoning so we can reach consensus on this topic and move forward? Thank you. Feel free to either rewrite it into the article if I have convinced you, reply on my talk page or on the talk page thread in the article.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you must have overlooked it, which is understandable on such a convoluted article while you are doing so many improvements. This paragraph in general.

Many consumers have stated a preference that products containing pink slime should be labeled as such, but a LFTB producer, Beef Products, Inc. (BPI), and meat industry organizations have stated that the product is already termed appropriately as "beef". When asking "what do you want us to label it" and the questioner stated "pink slime", a BPI representative said, "[we are] not prepared to label it pink slime".It was reported by ABC News that beef labeled as "USDA Organic" is comprised solely of meat without pink slime as filler.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Yes that is great, thank you. Do you think the preceding exchange would be important? (Q"~ why not label it" BPI: "label it what?" A:"we are not prepared...pink slime"), after all it is an answer to a question, or would that be too much?LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Hello, WolverineLawyer! I notice that we seem to be editing at cross purposes at the Pink slime article and I don't want us to get into an edit war. Regarding the opening sentence, can we agree that "also known as" is the most neutral way of introducing the other two terms (which are NOT used exclusively by manufacturers, but also by the USDA)? And please note that in my recent series of edits I was not "removing all references" to pink slime, as you suggested in your edit summary; the phrase still occurs in the article scores of times. I was simply trying to improve the editorial style by eliminating redundancy, whereby the same phrase was being used over and over in the same paragraph or even the same sentence. I am a professional writer so I care about decent writing. You restored three or four of the "pink slime" usages, which I don't have a big problem with, but I do ask you to accommodate the desire for readable writing. Are you OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small things[edit]

I don't mind that you cut in front with your Bloomberg citation, over my Atlantic citation. B. is a more primary (and earlier I think) source. Glad you left (most of) mine. There'd been no cite at all there when I found it. (And, interesting to me, the line about AFA was still so "fresh" in Wiki that Wiki "search" didn't even find AFA at that time. Does now.) Today, (1) I've just re-placed the '"wire" blog' part of my footnote that you removed, intentionally or not (you did some re-formatting of mine). Some object to the use of major-publication blogs. I don't want to be seen as "sneaking" such in. If someone doesn't like it, they can challenge it. I've won some, lost some. It's not an absolute in Wiki policy. Hope you see my rationale. (2) I added "Retrieved 2012-04-02." to your B. cite. I think that's considered required. Though I do see an exuberant flurry of alternative date formats just in that little corner of "Pink slime".

You left an extra period when you deleted the "wire" ref. For ref. Ug-ly.

You're newly established here but fast up to speed: Don't know if this is old (or petty) stuff to you or not. Thought I'd lean over backwards in case. Welcome. Cheers. 19:27 I'll check back for any response. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Pink Slime does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide brief edit summaries that describe the changes you have made to articles. This serves to inform other editors about your changes and the intent of those changes. Thank you in advance for your consideration regarding this matter. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Reassessment[edit]

I have commenced a reassessment of Pink slime at the GAR page here. I have flagged this also at the FAC page. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Wikipedians[edit]

Greetings WolverineLawyer! I noticed that you made mention of the University of Michigan or Ann Arbor on your userpage. If you are a current student, faculty, or other affiliate at the University of Michigan, I would like to welcome you, on behalf of the Michigan Wikipedians, to our next weekly meeting on Monday September 30 (and every Monday thereafter). The meetings are held at 8:00 PM (EDT) in the University of Michigan Shapiro Library, room 4041. New and experienced editors alike are most welcome. Do not hesitate to leave me a message if you have any questions, and feel free to stop by the MWiki talk page. The Michigan Wikipedians are excited to meet you! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]