I completely disagree with your analysis of this important issue. The information is sourced and well attested. If you have factual problems then please do list them, otherwise could you please leave the text where it is.126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- I assume you are User:Cocoaverification, since you seem to be responding to this. Could you please log in next time when you leave a comment here?
- I already gave you the reasons why I reverted your edits: They violate NPOV, the sources you gave are worthless (I'm sorry, but they are. I read the articles you linked to, and they don't mention Kraft or Côte_d'Or even once), and the criticism section is out of proportion for such a short article.
- You did not address a single one of those points, and just put the paragraph back in. I just took it out again, but since we seem to go into a loop here, I requested assistance in this dispute here
I'm sorry, and I do not mean to offend, but what you have written clearly shows that you do not understand the issue. The Harkin Engel Protocol was signed by all of industry, including Kraft to cover their Côte d'Or brand. They have not complied and as a company and as a brand they are not taking action like the other companies mentioned.It is important that people understand this with regard to the brands they buy.Here in Belgium Côte d'Or is the biggest brand and this is an important piece of information for people.It is not just something to be referred to with regard to industry as a whole because industry as awhole is not dealing with this, but in fact it is now being dealt with on a company by company basis. Which part of this is worthless in your opinion? Just taking the whole section out is not helpful, it does not add to understanding of the situation and it does not increase veracity. It simply hides some interesting and useful information. I wonder - would you go and edit out all the ethical debate references to Nestlé? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocoaverification (talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration in possessing in-depth personal information about the situation, but on Wikipedia we have reliable sourcing standards which state that you must use an adequate source to avoid posting original thought. Also, when posting opnions, you must indicate that it is an opinion so as not to favor one viewpoint over another. ←Spidern→ 12:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
re: deletion/Gummi (software)
Hi. Thanks for your note. You mention that there is at least one other article (Kile) where the subject is arguably as notable as Gummi. That doesn't necessarily make Gummi sufficiently notable, because it could be that the Kile article doesn't provide sufficient notability, but simply hasn't been reviewed. Blog entries generally are not considered reliable sources, but it might be helpful if you had a look through Wikipedia:Notability to see if you can find a criteria that Gummi might be notable under. If you can find one, and would like to have a go at resurrecting the article, the best way could be for me to copy the deleted text to your userspace (see Wikipedia:Userfication), which would allow you to do any work to it that might be necessary to show notability before re-adding it as an article. If you think that this is something that you might like to do, please feel free to get in touch at my talk page. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The game summaries had major grammatical mistakes. And don't worry because I was anyways going to write the summaries again with the earlier references. You can edit the page again if you think I've done something wrong. :) HARSH TALK 12:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hey! I think the Game 7 and Game 8 summaries are very well written now. Please consider writing game summaries for other games too, to make it a better article. And I hope you're watching the ongoing match :) HARSH TALK 12:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)