User talk:Takeaway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
8 This Wikipedian joined Wikipedia 8 years, 1 month, 3 weeks and 1 day ago as of November 27, 2015.
Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Talk archives:

Please add new comments to the bottom of my talk page

My favourite barnstar[edit]

Bulletproof Barnstar.PNG The Bulletproof Barnstar
In recognition of your contributions to 2010 Thai military crackdown, in which you risked your own personal safety, I award you the Bulletproof Barnstar. Your photography is in keeping with the highest standards of Wikipedia, and I thank you for it. Stay safe out there. - Kafziel Complaint Department 16:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! - Takeaway (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Takeaway. I'm not going to argue about your recent reversion to the article on Massaman curry. However, I'm curious as to where you got your "musselman" spelling from. I can't find it in any dictionary, and the archaic English word is "mussulman" (as instanced in the reference featured in the article). -- Picapica (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. MussElman is a typo that I've overlooked time and again. Sorry, I'll change it to "MussUlman". I prefer the double S in the article link as using only a single S would seem strange directly after seeing the word with double S. Cheers! - Takeaway (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Takeaway. You recently advised me to find another editor to help me with an article. I am now in the process of revising the article to further support the subject's notability, to include additional reliable sources, and to adhere to the encyclopedic tone and format. However, I don't know how one seeks out another editor. If I "resubmit" the article once I've revised it, won't it simply go back to the original editor? Thanks, Hirefire (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirefire (talkcontribs) 13:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Hirefire. I don't really know either how to go about finding another person to review your proposed article. Perhaps you can ask the people at Wikipedia:Help desk? It would seem to me that the article, as it now stands, is quite okay already. You've referenced nearly every word in it! Purely from a lay-out point of view, I would change the sections "Public service" and "Expert testimony" to a bullet list at the end of the article. It would make the article look less cluttered and thus improve readability. Good luck again! - Takeaway (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Bulletproof help[edit]

Dankeschön for your help and hints ! I tried to get the greek - turkish link into the Med article. From my live in the services, I remember that Belgium had to send two search dog teams, one frog-eating, one flemish to Turkey as they were not willing/ able to coordinate their efforts and both felt quite ashamed when they registered how amically greeks and turks bridged their respective rivalry. I however have not found a source for that factoid. Sigh ;( I already had to answer questions about my boldness on the talk page, and expanded the tsunami article, have a look if you like. The interesting thing about disasters is that the body count per se is not important - its important wether you have survivors that do the remembrance and have enough status in attention economy. The New York PS General Slocum disaster was nearly as big as 9/11, but is nearly forgotten, since it hit only the local German community - which was completely dissolved afterwards. Grüße Serten (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the great work. Cheers.Wikicology (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikicology, perhaps initiating AfD's is not such a good idea. Best to stick to only participating. And also please check that links still work when changing them from bare URLs to full URLs. Adding "retrieved" to a URL should mean that it was actually verified on that date. - Takeaway (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikicology, you might also want to look into how to correctly categorise articles, especially if you intend to keep writing new ones. The last article seems incorrectly categorised, and the previous one is missing categories. - Takeaway (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Takeaway, thank you very much for your advises and guildance. I will take to your suggestions. Thank you so much. However, don't you think the discussion at ANI should have been closed by now? Or what do you think?Wikicology (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that the discussion on your behaviour here on wikipedia should be closed in view of your latest actions, where you followed Tiptoethrutheminefield, an editor who was critical of your behaviour on the ANI thread concerning you, to an article that they had created, and incorrectly/spuriously nominating it for deletion, as well as following me to two different articles. This type of behaviour is not recommended. As I already stated a few days ago on the ANI concerning you, after our last interaction on your talk page I would prefer not to be involved with you. I would appreciate it very much if you would stop following me to articles, and I would also appreciate you stop posting messages here on my talk page. - Takeaway (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

Hi, I noticed your excellent user page advice on deletions. I am having problems with an editor who seems to be one of "those people who love deleting unreferenced content from Wikipedia". Epeefleche deletes this and that and the next thing, doing it for no reason other than the content is unreferenced. It is not controversial content, or fact tagged content, or even content that most readers would expect to have a citation. It seems to be just random content that, for unknown reasons reason, Epeefleche choses to delete. The big problem is that it is also always content that is factually correct. I have tried giving Epeefleche advice [1], and I restored some of Epeefleche's deletions (for example, [2] and [3]) - the result is that Epeefleche is now accusing me of Wikistalking. Here is Epeefleche's latest "D uncited per wp:v" deletion [4]. Yet even the most cursory of searches shows sources that confirm Gene Eugene died in his sleep. Why did this editor choose to delete such harmless content, I don't know? Why did Epeefleche not bother to make the cursory search before deletion, I don't know? What do you suggest I do? Could you give Epeefleche some editing advice perhaps. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I'd rather not involve myself with another possibly problematic editor for a while Tiptoethrutheminefield. Two in one month is enough! LOL! Pity that slapping on "removal of content" templates from Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace doesn't really work too well if they're removing unreferenced content. You already tried getting them to use {{fact}} instead, although I find it worded a bit harsh, probably due to you being frustrated with what they're doing. It's understandable but not always productive. Try again in another tone and if that doesn't work, how about gathering diffs of their unwarranted removals, meaning removals where with a tiny bit of googling you'd find good sources, and then go to an admin, explain the circumstances, and hopefully, if the admin is willing, they'll give the editor a firm talking to? The ANI drama board probably won't find something like this of enough dramatic content so that's probably not a good way to go about it, unless of course, Epeefleche is one of the regular characters there in an on-going soap with enough other usual suspects who hate their guts and then you might be in luck IF you don't mind the drama that is surely going to unfold. - Takeaway (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. And yes, I admit my advice giving was a bit harsh. This was partly due to Epeefleche's "This user is one of the 200 most active Wikipedians of all time" boast on his talk page - such an active editor should already know all and every bit of advice that any other editor could give. Some of the edits are just bizarre. Another recent edit, [5] - he deletes mention of a festival that is easily confirmed as a real and ongoing yearly festival. But why that one festival, and not all the other ones that are similarly unreferenced in the article? And here [6], why that one sentence and not the equally un-encyclopedic and unreferenced sentences that came before it? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
In the first item they seem to be going on their "gut feeling" of what isn't notable, which sometimes works, especially if you've read a lot of Wiki articles you develop a kind of nose for these things, but then again, sometimes it doesn't work. As for the second, I have no idea what the sentence that they removed actually means and to me the removal seems fairly justified as being one of those "non-encyclopaedic" things that don't really belong here on Wikipedia. What the heck is "Your motto in life, they are also like other music lovers on the way, has it come true "Do not dream your life, live your dream." This creed is true for all that do Milk & Honey."???? Is it the motto of the band? Should it actually be placed elsewhere in a more appropriate place? The whole sentence just doesn't make any sense to me. Is the band actually notable? I did a quick search and couldn't find much at all about the German Milk & Honey from anything remotely reliable. Perhaps the whole page should be deleted? - Takeaway (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted the rest of the really silly-sounding text on Milk & Honey (group) and replaced it with just a single sentence. The band is probably only of minor notability and only in Germany, but also probably not worth the effort to take it to an AfD. Took me all of 10 seconds to find the website of the Gustar Music Festival. But at a loss to know how to deal with this, [7]. How could anyone think pornography is the appropriate category to place this article in? But there is no discussion section for categories. Initiate a RfC perhaps? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
An AfD for the German group doesn't take much time at all if it's clearly non-notable as seems the case here. I'll look into it a bit more and perhaps nominate them myself. I've scanned the pornography category that this article is now placed in and it contains more organisations concerned with child protection that include protection against child pornography and exploitation. It seems justified. Unless you find that this editor is engaged in something that is clearly a violation of Wikipedia regulations, I'd suggest to forget this and continue doing something else. Checking up on an editor because they are interpreting Wikipedia policy in a certain way that is allowed but with which you do not agree, is not beneficial for your health at all. Think of your blood pressure! ;-) - Takeaway (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the "Anti–child pornography" category in the article, but the "Unassessed Pornography articles", "Unknown-importance Pornography articles", "Unassessed Unknown-importance Pornography articles", and "WikiProject Pornography articles" categories in the talk page. That all seems very OTT to me. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a "anti-child pornography" category for article assessments. If you look at Talk:Child pornography, you will notice that that is categorised in exactly the same category as the editor has put the above-mentioned Talk:Israel National Council for the Child into. I'd really advise you to drop this issue you have with Epeefleche's approach to unreferenced content. Editors just don't get into the top 200 "most edits on Wikipedia" if they consistently get it wrong. - Takeaway (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
If that is the way categories are currently set up to work, I will leave it at that. Thanks for the helpful and clarifying advice on this. But for the rest, rather than being dazzled by his name being in the "top 200 most edits on Wikipedia", I had hoped that the scenario that Epeefleche might have been deleting masses of unreferenced but otherwise correct content would have filled you with horror. Even if only 1% of those 138,718 edits are "d uncited per wp:v" that is a lot of loss :( Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
As I already wrote earlier (now below here at the end of this thread) editors are allowed to operate this way, relying on others (or as some might say "pushing the problem onto others") to reinstate the deleted content with a citation to prove its right of inclusion. It has stopped bothering me. If it did, I'd have died of a heart attack years ago. Don't forget, it's only Wikipedia, and also, nobody's in a hurry. If it's notable, the deleted content will probably resurface again some time. I only become angry-ish now (or actually, amused at the gall these editors display) when I see blatant WP:TENDENTIOUS, POV and COI. Best to focus on combating these editors. - Takeaway (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Tiptoethrutheminefield, the only way to prevent editors from operating in this deletionist manner is to have Wiki policy changed to stipulate that editors have the obligation to check for WP:V before they are allowed to delete something. This issue has no doubt been raised many times already in the past and it seems to have been shot down as Wikipedia regulations state that editors are allowed to do this. There is only one obligation and that is WP:V, to show that content is verifiable and therefore merits inclusion until shown that it is non-notable. See also meta:Inclusionism and meta:Deletionism concerning articles. - Takeaway (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this editor might belong to the group that follows the creed "if it's not referenced, I can delete it. And if it's notable, someone will put it back, and this time with a citation as is required". It's not how I work but I've noticed a lot of people who do operate that way and it's apparently okay here on Wikipedia. Not much that you can do actually.... - Takeaway (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lawa people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mae Sariang. 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) 09:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


Why are you reverting my report of a vandal? Helpsome (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh did I? I'm sorry Help some, I must have accidentally touched the rollback button. Takeaway (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Country Recipes[edit]

Takeaway, thanks for keeping an eye on Wikepedia's content. I appreciate what you're doing. Still, I'm hoping to be a resource to users. I spent 4 years cooking a meal from every country in the world A-Z and did tremendous amounts of research along the way, ultimately adapting 650+ recipes from every country in the world. I have a memoir coming out with National Geographic in March. My mission is to encourage peace and understanding by showing people there is good food in every country. In some cases my web site is the only online resource for recipes. How can I best contribute the recipe links to Wikepedia while honoring the guidelines? My intern was also trying to add some of this data, too (under her account) Thanks in advance for your consideration -- User:SashaMartin — Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is very clear in this respect, that blogs should not be put under external links unless it is published by a recognised authority, meaning an authority on that specific cuisine (see WP:ELNO), which, per point 11 in WP:ELNO, needs to be a proven fact. If your blog itself is notable per Wikipedia rules (see WP:NOTABILITY), it can get its own standalone article. Do note that WP:NOTABILITY is fairly strict as to what is, and what isn't notable. Repeatedly inserting a blog to a whole bunch of articles is not recommended per WP:LINKSPAM. There is also the problem that you seem to be using two different user accounts; not only SashaMartin, but also Mickaela casper. This is not recommended per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Both accounts behave exactly the same, adding the same blog to a whole range of Wikipedia articles. Even if this is a "friend helping out", it would fall under WP:MTPPT and will be treated as a sock-puppet account which can get you blocked for just having two (or more) accounts. - Takeaway (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That makes total sense. I'm so sorry, Takeaway. So to be clear - it sounds like the first step is to try and prove myself and my blog as a recognized authority? I would think with National Geographic backing me that should be doable... And then am I supposed to create the entry about myself/my blog if that's true? Or should I have someone at National Geographic do it? SashaMartin (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@SashaMartin. Once National Geographic mentions your blog and/or yourself, you might be notable. For more information, read WP:GNG, where it also states that "multiple sources are generally expected". It is not recommended that you write your own article although there are (very few) exceptions to this rule (more information at (WP:COI). When the memoir is published at NatGeo, please ask for more information at Wikipedia:Village pump where there are editors who can help you further with Wikipedia rules and policies. - Takeaway (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Thanks for your patience and understanding! :) SashaMartin (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Thank you Northamerica1000! :) - Takeaway (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Monther Alkabbani[edit]

At the AfD you said that there were good referencess in the Arabic article, but the English article is still unsourced, and was tagged with {{Prod blp/dated}} which has just expired. I have declined that by resetting the seven-day clock, but I do not understand Arabic enough to add a reference from the Arabic article - can you do that? JohnCD (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi JohnCD. I don't understand Arabic either so I made use of Google Translate and added what looked like the most reliable references as a list to the article but no in-line citations though, and also added one more that I had found on my own for the AfD. As I already mentioned at the AfD for this article, someone who actually knows Arabic should have a look at the article and properly source it. The AfD was only to show that the writer was WP:NOTABLE. - Takeaway (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. My main concern was to get some reference, so that the BLP-prod could be removed. Following DGG's suggestion at the AfD, I have moved it to Mundhir Qabbānī, the transliteration of his name used by Worldcat and the Library of Congress, and de-orphaned it with a link from his book, which already had an article. I will see if I can find an Arabic speaker to improve it. JohnCD (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Avacado Page[edit]

Do you think there is a better fun facts page that doesn't feel like lobbying from the avacado industry that also supports the article? I just googled "avacado fun facts" and picked the top result.

@Bhanks: As I mentioned in my edit summary: revert to source which supports the content: not just showing "fun facts". The link was not needed to show "fun facts", it was there as a reference for the sentence "The avocado was introduced from Mexico to California in the 19th century, and has become a successful cash crop. About 59,000 acres (240 km2) – some 95% of United States avocado production – is located in Southern California, with 60% in San Diego County" in the article. Your edit only showed a list of "fun facts". It could not be used as a source for the content for which it was supposed to be a reference.
Please also sign your posts on talk pages by typing in four tildes after your message. Read WP:TILDE for more information on how to sign your posts. - Takeaway (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point thanks. Bhanks (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking for help[edit]

Hi Takeaway, recently I have a disagreement with User:Lee788 in Soto (food) article. Please see the Talk:Soto (food) in section about redundancy. I see you are quite well-equipped in culinary knowledge and also an impartial observer, please give me your opinion or maybe a mediation on this editing disagreement. Greatly appreciated, thank you! Gunkarta  talk  12:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Takeaway, I'm Lee from Singapore. I am very disappointed with Gunkarta that can not accept the fact. Takeaway, believe me,i did not make any changes without the facts and sources. What I have found, the statement from anthropologist from the University of Gadjah Mada, Dr Lono Simatupang, according to him, the soup called soto is a mixture of various traditions and not Indonesian cuisine alone. In it there are local influences and other cultures. Noodles in soup, for example, comes from the Chinese tradition. China was the one that had the technology to make noodles and glass noodles. He also state that soto is also the possibility of influences from Indian culture. There are several uses of turmeric soup. It's like a curry from India, he said. Because the soup is a mixture of various traditions. Denys Lombard in his book Le Carrefour Javanais also suggested that the origin of soto was a Chinese soup called caudo. I did not deny it is origin from Indonesia and it is a part of Indonesian cuisine, but i only modify it as Indonesia cuisine derived from Chinese cuisine in infobox. The issue, Gunkarta can not accept the modification of the infobox even agree that it derived from Chinese cuisine. For me, infobox is very important such as full article. All the facts in the infobox should be adjusted as in the full article, however it must be in short but clear(see the soto talk page). Put in Indonesian cuisine in infobox as a creator with not mentioned the truth fact, it is good in ethic of writing? I just make little modification it derived from Chinese cuisine, 'caudo', but based on facts and sources, thats all. So, am I wrong, Takeaway? I hope you can understand what is my intention. I know you are very knowledgeable person about the cuisine and you can make good judgment. User:Lee788
I have to agree with Gunkarta, that it is wholly unnecessary to have the infobox mention that soto might have been derived from Chinese cuisine. Even though it might be an adaptation of a Chinese noodle soup, it is so very different from what a Chinese soup would look and taste like, that it can be seen as a wholly new creation. And even if it is indeed a mix of Indian and Chinese influences, the dish as we now know it, was created in Indonesia. Having this information mentioned in the section "History" should be more than adequate. - Takeaway (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Schools in Thailand[edit]

Hi Takeaway, first of all thank you for your message letting me know about your decision, yet as a foreign parent living and working in Thailand I think such a link is a must have and will help many families around here -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I removed your repeated addition of an external link which lists schools in Thailand per the following Wikipedia policies: WP:LINKSPAM, WP:NOTDIRECTORY & WP:NOTGUIDE. - Takeaway (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polyscias fruticosa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dip (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) 10:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Page creations by Imyiran[edit]

Thanks for reverting spam edits by Imyiran. The user had created many articles, almost all of which have been speedy deleted. As such I have now also nominated Ardisiacrispin A for the same. In any case, unless Wikipedia uses cookie-based blocking, I find it likely that the spammer will return with a new account. --IO Device (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't WP have a filter for suspect website links? Perhaps including the website that this user was spamming as one of these suspect websites would be a good idea. Takeaway (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


OK, make it kuurhuis then if that's the correct word op Nederlands. (But, why is the file called "Koerhuis.jpg" – ??) Sca (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)]

I have no idea why the uploader named the file "koerhuis". Perhaps because when pronounced in Dutch it somewhat resembles the German word? No one uses Kuurhuis for this building either. Kurhaus is, although only a description in German for this type of venue, the actual name of this particular building in Dutch. See Takeaway (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, dank u wel. Sca (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Curry ketchup[edit]

Yeah, I know about the curry ketchup article & understand your rationale. However, curry ketchup is a phrase, and a product, unknown in U.S. English. May I suggest again that we compromise on "ketchup laced with curry," as I attempted in my last edit? Dank je. Sca (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

reply at User talk:Sca
Well, List of languages by total number of speakers estimates 1.2 billion speakers of English as a first, second or "foreign" language, of whom first-language speakers total 400 million, first- and second-language speakers about 800 million and "foreign language" speakers another 400 million. The number of U.S. speakers of English as their first language is put at 306 million (out of a total population of 320 million). Thus, native speakers of U.S. English comprise over three quarters (77 percent) of all native English speakers, 38 percent of native and second-language speakers, and 26 percent of all English speakers worldwide.
Any way you slice it, U.S. English is a significant proportion of English spoken worldwide. To deliberately employ a phrase not known to this large group of English Wiki readers does not promote reader comprehension. Yes, a few readers may click on curry ketchup to find out what it is, but most will not.
Needless to say, it's a minor problem here. But I do take issue with your dismissal of my view as "very strange." It's the logical view of someone who spent most of his life writing and editing – in U.S. English. Sca (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Sca. It's not just a phrase, it's actually a type of sauce in Germany, without which a currywurst wouldn't be currywurst. Why you don't want curry ketchup linked is incomprehensible. It is like not wanting to link the Italian word fresco while writing about the paintings on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, and instead re-writing in a few words what has already been written elsewhere in more detail. What this has to do with how many people actually use U.S. English, I have no idea as this sauce is virtually unknown outside of the German language sphere, and a few surrounding countries.- Takeaway (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Doh. I understand it's a type of ketchup, which is a type of sauce.
I don't believe you'll ever to understand my "incomprehensible" view, which considers the linguistic needs of the audience, so ... Tot ziens. Sca (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
It is not just any generic tomato ketchup with some curry powder sprinkled over it, but it is a spiced type of tomato sauce, somewhat similar to, and sometimes even based on tomato ketchup. I have also just changed a few things in both the articles currywurst and curry ketchup to reflect this. Previous editors didn't seem to be aware of the fact, thinking that it is indeed just some curry powder sprinkled over any tomato ketchup. It seems to be more clear now even though those articles need more work done to them. Perhaps next time then. As for the linguistic needs of the audience, why not explain the words currywurst, bratwurst and bockwurst which are used in the same sentence? Why so focussed on not linking to the curry ketchup article? - Takeaway (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
"Ketchup laced with curry" would cover the waterfront, since it could mean a special type of ketchup flavored with curry, etc., and/or ordinary ketchup sprinkled with curry powder.
Macht aber wirklich nicht viel. Tschuß. Sca (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
PS: How's this for a compromise? Sca (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Sca, not correct. As I wrote here above, it isn't just ketchup laced with curry. That is indeed what most English language sources imply. If you could read German on the other hand, you'd know that there is more going on than just that. What was actually so wrong about the previous version? - Takeaway (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Confused-tpvgames.png Sca (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(talk page stalker)Although I usually support the use of words and phrases familiar to speakers of American English, in this case I have to agree with Takeaway. It is a distinct sauce with a long history, and since the component words of the phrase, "curry" and "ketchup", are familiar to English speakers, the main ingredients of the sauce are not a great mystery. I assume you have been discussing the link to Curry ketchup in the Currywurst article. It won't hurt speakers of American English to come across a new food item, and the link to the short Curry ketchup article makes sense. However, in the lede of the Currywurst article, the first sentence now reads:

  • a fast food dish of German origin consisting of steamed, then fried pork sausage (German: Bratwurst) whole or less often cut into slices and seasoned with curry ketchup, a sauce based on spiced ketchup or tomato paste, itself topped with curry powder, or a ready-made ketchup seasoned with curry and other spices.

I don't think the word "itself" is needed. Instead, how about an adverb? Is curry ketchup always topped with curry powder, often topped with curry powder, or sometimes topped with curry powder? I think the way it is worded now, the last phrase, "or a ready-made ketchup seasoned with...." is confusing. I don't see the difference between that and "a sauce based on spiced ketchup or tomato paste". Presumably, the "spice" implied by "spiced ketchup" is curry. Perhaps that last phrase could be omitted. CorinneSD (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You are correct CorinneSD, in that the last phrase is confusing. It can indeed be deleted. And as for exchanging "itself" by an adverb, "often" would be best.
In addition, currywurst is not always made with a Bratwurst. Depending on the region, it can also be had with Brühwurst instead; for instance in Berlin. - Takeaway (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted Addition to List[edit]

Regarding my edit to List of Notable Perfumer's, I added a reference link to the list for my addition, referencing Ca Fleure Bon's "Profiles in American Perfumery", which did a feature on Angela St. John this month. I made a large number of contributions to Wikipedia several years ago, and am just now getting back into editing mode. I was actually trying to figure out/recall the appropriate formatting for that reference when I got the noticed that you reverted it. In 2008 when I was very active, I never had anyone revert an edit within 20 minutes of me posting it. In fact, it was customary for me to make changes as I had time, and complete the citations in another session. Should I expect people to be so quick to revert going forward? I don't often have time to complete an article or the edits I want to make to an article in a single session, but I am absolutely an expert and senior leader in my particular field with a lot to contribute.

Mtzweil, it is indeed possible that unsubstantiated claims are reverted very soon after they are made. It wouldn't seem too much trouble to actually supply a reference to back up a claim here in Wikipedia and indeed, you did so within a few minutes. I see that all your previous edits were made some 7 years ago. Perhaps things have changed a bit in the meantime? Please also sign your posts on other people's talkpages by closing off with 4 tildes. - Takeaway (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Takeaway Yes, I just figured the tilde thing out. It used to be a little icon that looked like a pen signing. Like I said, it looks like a number of things have changed. I supposed I'd better go back through all of the help files.Mtzweil (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Good luck! - Takeaway (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Your AIV report[edit]

How did you make this report? It contained all kinds of weirdness. --NeilN talk to me 04:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:. I reported the vandal the usual way as far as I know. What kind of "weirdness" do you mean? - Takeaway (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The iferror and IPv4 and IPv6 tags. --NeilN talk to me 04:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey NeilN, I looked again and now also realise the weirdness there. No idea what happened. AFAIK I followed the usual route as recommended. - Takeaway (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I've seen that before and was hoping you could shed some light. Thanks for looking. --NeilN talk to me 04:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: Wait a sec NeilN, did something change to the text message at the top of the page? I now see "<!-- The following are examples of how to report a vandal on this page Please copy and paste an appropriate example to the *VERY BOTTOM* of the page. *{{subst:IPvandal|example IP}} - optional brief reason for listing (keep it short). [[User:SineBot|SineBot]] ([[User talk:SineBot|talk]]) 10:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC) -->" but I seem to recall that it used to be slightly different before.
I C&P-ed this part -> "{{subst:IPvandal|example IP}} - optional brief reason for listing (keep it short).", adding in the IP address and the optional reason, and then added 4 tildes to sign the message.
I don't remember having seen the "[[User:SineBot|SineBot]] ([[User talk:SineBot|talk]]) 10:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)" before. - Takeaway (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. Looks okay now? I've asked MusikAnimal about it. --NeilN talk to me 05:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The example reports in the comments were telling the users to substitute the templates [8]. Comments were wrong anyway, should be like it is now with examples of {{vandal}} and {{IPvandal}}. We could theoretically get a bot to ensure the examples in the comments are always correct, and restore them if they get removed. I'll ask the operators of the AIV helper bots MusikAnimal talk 05:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, it's now back to how I remember it! - Takeaway (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Takeaway, you might enjoy using Twinkle to make reports, though! Mucho easier in my opinion. Same is true for reporting to WP:RFPP, WP:UAA, WP:SPI, and so forth. Not sure if you knew that already MusikAnimal talk 05:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I gave Twinkle a try once but for some reason, that I now can't remember, I didn't bother using it thereafter. I'll look into it again as it seems as if I encounter more vandalism/test edits nowadays than before. Advert edits seem to have gone down though! :) - Takeaway (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Twinkle will turn your wiki-world upside down. It does everything and will save you oceans of time. The docs are here, but I think you'll probably figure out what all the links are on your own. Let me know if you need help MusikAnimal talk 05:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)