User talk:Radical Mallard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

History Clean-Up[edit]

Cleaned history today. Nothing really relevant to current editing habits or interests in old logs. Radical Mallard (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Korean copycat product listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Korean copycat product. Since you had some involvement with the Korean copycat product redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Fram (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I left a reply. The issue of it being racist to some people is an unfortunate one. I think what I find "dramatic" and "outstanding" about the Korean products is that the Japanese products "go out of their way" to make the packaging and such a unique part of the product experience, and they are based on ideas an artist came up with. The odds of the packaging looking the same, and the ingredients being the same with a few changes, by accident (so that at first glance one things the products are the same), seem astronomical. As opposed to how two milk or orange juice containers that have the same shape but the lettering, packaging, etc are just people selling something humans consume all over the world and there is no "gimmick" from another company that stands out to imitate. In the case of Korea, the Japanese "gimmick" is imitated and this is what stands out. Perhaps it is part of a broader phenomenon of "gimmick imitation": Topps products being copied by Fleer, Cracked and Crazy Magazine imitating Mad Magazine, etc. The subject apparently needs research done.--Radical Mallard (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nuclear electric rocket may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • chalmers.se/~valeri/Ajax/7b_vandy.pdf ''The Safe Affordable Fission Engine (SAFE) Test Series''])</ref><ref>NASA (2010): ''[http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/cs/groups/ssbsite/documents/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! --Radical Mallard (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vaporization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

List of nicknames for farmers listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of nicknames for farmers. Since you had some involvement with the List of nicknames for farmers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

== August 2016 == Information icon Hello, I'm Doniago. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Super Size Me seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

At the time the McLibel case hang over the consciousness of the public around McDonalds quite extensively. To not mention McLibel at all in Spurlock's Wikipedia film entry seems extremely unreasonable, as another case was also mentioned.. if we do not mention the McLibel case then we probably should not mention the other case in the entry, but that would detract from the important information that other lawsuits against McDonalds on the issue of health-concerns-to-the-public would be left out, and this information is crucial to understanding why Spurlock made his film, 'Super Size me', and enhances the value of the Wikipedia article. I have added a couple reference links for the mention of the McLibel case, in relation to a film about it, and in relation to health concerns about mcdonalds food at the time.---Radical Mallard (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
It was easy enough for me to address my POV concerns by simply removing "renowned and long-lasting", which are relative terms; I don't believe their removal hurts what you're trying to say. DonIago (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, both of those descriptive words could be backed up by references. Whether one has a POV or not, the McLibel case was renowned and unprecedented, and it also lasted a very long time. It feels suspiciously excessive that something like this would be challenged when it was simply a fact of reality at the time. As if any possible thing one could say about this would be under a "legal challenge" microscope. Am I to assume that is the case? And can you explain why you would make a claim of POV in the first place when this was simply a recording of actual historical events?---Radical Mallard (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Because, as I said, they're both relative terms. There's no indication that Joe Normal would consider the case "renowned", and what makes a court case "long-lasting"? I doubt there's an official definition of such. I don't see that removing those descriptors harms the text. DonIago (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)