Content deleted Content added
Notification: proposed deletion of Comparison of computer-assisted language learning software. |
Problemsmith (talk | contribs) →Types of chocolate: new section |
||
Line 414:
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 12:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
== Types of chocolate ==
{{u|Bawanio}} I recognize your work as competent and well-done on this article! I liked the improvements you made to my work and the article in general. This person Barry that deleted your work I do not agree with, this article needs to be a "Good Article" your additions and organization will get it there. [[Types of chocolate]] should talk about every legitimate claim made in LAW and that has public appeal and gains traction enough to exist. I am curious to know why WHOLE POD chocolate did not make it there in 2019, despite being a flop in the market it used the cacao fruit in its entirety not just the bean.
What do we do about him hacking up the article? I do not even understand his actual motivation except to suppress free speech, skirt the law and basically stop expanding the noosphere regarding chocolate. I am a chocolate expert and have a bonafide interest in all the articles especially the bean-to-bar industry, people I know like Clay Gordon and Sharon Terezi are very well known globally, they are not Wikipedia editors. I am not a paid consultant and need the reality of chocolate reflected in the Creative Commons. If you want to reach me directly you can probably figure out how using Facebook or email. I am interested in creating a WikiProject on Chocolate or Cacao, I am not interested in the work of maintaining it. If a WikiProject did exist there would be a force to be reckoned with. See what I wrote in his (Barry)'s talk page, then see his responses, he is callous, not passionate and uses short illogical rationale regarding chocolate. Netherlands, Switzerland and Belgium have major patents and involvement in the industry, white, ruby and milk chocolate are all credited to have emerged in Switzerland.
I have seen countless articles and read documents regards Swiss chocolate as a preferred type, some people will eat no other chocolate, recently there was a Court Case in the US regarding Belgian Chocolate made in Pennsylvania that was determined to not be Belgian with Godiva chocolates, they lost their ass and are being forced to refund millions of dollars for selling FAKE Belgian Chocolate. See https://www.godivachocolatesettlement.com/ . He is dead wrong about not calling Dutch cocoa chocolate, add sugar and he is wrong. Really Barry is way off base and has no real interest in doing much more than protecting his own work, my hunch or has some other motive I just do not understand, perhaps his ego. I hope you can restore your edits, when a United States Court speaks to create a settlement like this is because there is a cause to call it Belgian chocolate! Barry really has no idea about this.
Really I just cannot take making "GOOD FAITH" edits and improvements to articles to have them reverted by some hack with lots of edits to his credit that has no clue about a subject in an effort to police Wikipedia, there are plenty of vandals to go after! All of my edits are made regarding subjects I have an interest in as a hobby or occupation based on What I Know to be the truth, they are all done consistent with the Honor Code, I do not understand the ideas behind reverting good edits without a sound rationale. [[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] ([[User talk:Problemsmith|talk]]) 20:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
| |||