text:
User talk:Clee7903

Welcome!

My IP address is 64.59.144.21

Welcome to Wikipedia, Clee7903! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Acetic Acid 05:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent
...work on Emperor Ai of Tang China,.  Molotov   (talk)     16:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Summerpalace02.jpg has been listed as a possibly unfree image
Also it is severely underexposed. It's salvagable, but I cannot upload corrected version until it has been licensed for use under the GFDL.

-- David Woolley 15:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Nasilemak.JPG
Hello, I would like to enquire if you would like to release this image under the GFDL or some other copyleft licence, or perhaps release it into the public domain. We cannot use images not under a copyleft licence or in the public domain or licences that make the image otherwise undistributable by certain groups. Please inform me of your decision so we can work together to build an encyclopaedia free for everyone. (If you would prefer to keep the image under some other licence or otherwise unusable by certain people, then that is also a valid option; the image, however, would have to be deleted.) Johnleemk | Talk 10:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Emperor Du of Song China
Hi.. Noticed that you have created 2 articles Emperor Du of Song China and Emperor Duzong of Song China with the same content. If you want I can redirect 1 article to the other so that the previous article leads to the other article automatically. For more information see Redirect - Aksi great 05:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Shanghaimetro.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Shanghaimetro.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ShanghaiWorldFinancialCenter7smallx.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ShanghaiWorldFinancialCenter7smallx.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Chinasouth.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Chinasouth.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tianjinmetrologo.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:Tianjinmetrologo.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 08:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Citizens bank.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Citizens bank.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aclogo.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Aclogo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Aclogo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Aclogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Echowall.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Echowall.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. -Nard 22:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Summerpalace03.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Summerpalace03.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Jordan 1972 (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

December 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. HkCaGu (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. HkCaGu (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. HkCaGu (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw your comments on HkCaGu's talk page and I thought I would like to comment: WhisperToMe (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Please do not tell me what i can or cannot do. You do not own the internet. I will continue changing as I like" - Firstly, everyone on Wikipedia minds his or her own business and the business of other people. If you want to continue contributing Wikipedia, please be receptive and understanding of other people's comments. Also, please notice the Wikipedia message: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."
 * "And please stop "quoting" articles to me. I do not need to be lectured by you." - HkCaGu justifiably and correctly referred you to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia users are obligated to generally follow guidelines and to always follow policies. Please accept this practice, and please accept other users referring you to policies.

File source problem with File:Chenghua.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Chenghua.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Chenghua.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Chenghua.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Do you happen to know who created the drawing/painting or how old it is? If so it would be nice if you would write the info on the file page. --MGA73 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Stats on on Chinese articles
Hello! Thanks for adding all those figures. Do you have a source? Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anna, I took the stats from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_administrative_divisions_by_GDP which is simply another wikipedia page and updated their respective page. Thanks

File:Chenghua.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chenghua.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  F ASTILY s  (TALK) 08:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Yanbozhishuang hall.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Yanbozhishuang hall.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Zhengligate.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Zhengligate.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Wang Mang.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Wang Mang.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Happyvalleylogo1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Happyvalleylogo1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaJaWa (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Holland Park Surrey.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Holland Park Surrey.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Metropolis at Metrotown logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Metropolis at Metrotown logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Daylen (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Uniqlo
Hello, I'm Zazpot. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Uniqlo have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. zazpot (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Uniqlo. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. zazpot (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

 * With all due respects, I am not just adding links. I am simply updating the information with the most current numbers based on the company's information as the citation of truth. It is not an appropriate link as it was taken from the company's own corporate website. Wikipedia is a forum to provide the most up to date valid information. I can agree with your explanation that an article should not be written as an advertisement hence I did not revert the way it was written. I simply reverted the number of stores based on the most current numbers but I am not sure why you are determined to keep the number of stores based on a 2013 source which is 4 years old. I am not a newbie to Wikipedia. I have been editing articles for years and have been doing it with the utmost care as to not add flawed information so I do not appreciate a lecture from you. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clee7903 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Clee7903, thanks for trying to explain the reasoning behind . Your explanation is puzzling, though: you seem to be acknowledging that the link you added "is not an appropriate link as it was taken from the company's own corporate website." This begs the questions: why did you add it, and why did you revert my removal of it?
 * As for "Wikipedia is a forum to provide the most up to date valid information", I think that's a misunderstanding of the purpose of an encyclopaedia. First of all, information should not be included unless it is WP:VERIFIABLE. So, to answer your uncertainty ("I am not sure why you are determined to keep the number of stores based on a 2013 source which is 4 years old"), the reason is that it is better to have an old WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS that provides sufficient illustration for encyclopaedic purposes, than to have a more recent source that is not independent and may not be reliable. Hope that clears things up, and that you can agree with my reversion of your edit. Please WP:PING me in your reply. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uniqlo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richmond Centre ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Uniqlo check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Uniqlo?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Emperor Taizong of Tang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TTV ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Emperor_Taizong_of_Tang check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Emperor_Taizong_of_Tang?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, T & T Supermarket, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Willowbrook Shopping Centre.png
Thanks for uploading File:Willowbrook Shopping Centre.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Clee7903


text:
Talk:The North Face

The North Face Guru
I have a sneaking suspicion that "The North Face Guru" section of this article is advertising and/or self-promotion. I feel it should be deleted, but I'll leave it up to y'all to decide. Josehunder (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I consider it interesting and relevant. This kind of article has a lot of gray areas - this seems like one of them - but I am in favor of keeping it. Ratagonia (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like advertising to me. It's essentially that site's "About" page re-written. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But it's a non-profit page, doesn't have a strong commercial interest. The "about" page is the source for the history material, so of course, the wiki text is quite similar to the source.  Ratagonia (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is advertising in normal sense. For me as user of Wikipedia, it seems informational and in so far this section can remain - for me. One argument for remaining: There is such a site where the people are talking about counterfeit products and there are white/blacklists for good/bad sellers. As far as the number of products sold on the Internet, not only on eBay, is increasing, it seems that such "community sites" should be named - especially because the number of counterfeit products is rising - and thus not only in the US. -- ReneRomann (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

 * EXCELLENT editing on that, Hawkwang. Ratagonia (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Logo
According to the company's website, the quarter-circle logo is supposed to represent Half Dome in Yosemite National Park.
 * Yep... If you look at some pictures here, you'll find some similarity. :P -- ReneRomann (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on a project at Northwestern University Library focusing on Berkeley during the 60s, and I came across an advertisement for an early North Face store on Telegraph in an October, 1969 edition of the Daily Californian. The logo used in the ad was the same logo (or very similar) to the current one, down to the Helvetica typeface and half dome/ "quarter circle" icon. Did a small amount of digging (this isn't exactly in my job description) and couldn't determine where the 1971 date or the designer information came from originally -- just seems to be getting endlessly quoted and recycled as things tend to do on the interwebs. Anyway, thought I'd throw that out there for someone else to obsess over. Alsjakobso (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me look into it and see if I can find a original source stating the correct date. (Current TNF Employee) Apriestofgix (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Theft
In recent years, there has been a high-rate of theft for their products. Muggings have also occured (esp. in DC area). Any way to work this in? --FasilA 02:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You could work it into popular items to steal.

HyVent
I'd like some discussion and comparison of HyVent fabric. --Error (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The South Butt
Is this relevant? A 'parody' company, The South Butt, has turned The North Face's logo upside down and is selling fleeces, etc, this way. TNF has issued TSB with a cease and desist letter, and is threatening to sue. TSB offered to sell the company to TNF for a million dollars. If nothing else, I'd imagine a mention under the counterfeit section would make sense? --SeattleHiker (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Seems uncyclopedic - why bother. Not notable, even in this sense. Ratagonia (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Here are a few reasons to bother, apart from the obvious one that the article is a stub, and that this is relevant and referencable material for it.

 * What seems unencyclopedic about it? I'm guessing you mean the word "butt" in the name, but, Wikipedia has an article titled "How to Eat with your Butt."

 * If it's noteworthy and encyclopedic to say that peoples' jackets are being stolen, and (sometimes-)bad counterfeits are being made, then pointing to the existence of a company that counterfeits/parodies only The North Face is very much in line. And it's probably a little more noteworthy/encyclopedic than the other examples, because this case is specific.

 * Finally, if that weren't reason enough for this to warrant inclusion, parody is rare at all as a defense in commercial-use cases, all the moreso for trademark cases. That "The South Butt" is in the process of fighting, and has offered to sell the (seemingly) bad-faith trademark to its rightful owner, promises to make this a very notable case.

 * Anyway, those are my two cents.

 * --SeattleHiker (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 * with inflation... 3 cents. A tiny company, no original products, a few kids with a website and a clever way to draw internet attention to itself... what is notable about it?  If the case goes to court (unlikely) and the case is covered by The Real Press (unlikely)... then maybe it would be worth a mention.

 * Comments from any other editors??? Ratagonia (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 * As Ratagonia already said - it's notable if it's mentioned in real press - otherwise it's not for sure whether this is not just a gag to gain interest and clicks on the internet. -- ReneRomann (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"North Face" redirect vs. "The North Face"
Hi there! "North Face" is redirected to this article about a clothing company, which I think is not correct. "North Face" (as explained on the disambiguation page) refers to the most challenging face of a mountin on the northern hemisphere. This gave rise to the name for the clothing company! "The North Face" (with the article) may go directly to the clothing company, but NOT "North Face". I dont know how to change this, but I suggest this should be changed, so that "North Face" leads to a disambiguation page or directly to something like Great_north_faces_of_the_Alps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.211.3 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit with SouthButt-section
I think that keeping the section as far as it may become an informative section in the future. I don't see that it's nonsense that a section should be deleted with given references. -- ReneRomann (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is not germane at this point, per comments in Talk above. Was only one of several legitimate edits summarily reverted by you, an unacceptable approach.  (You have summarily reverted *seven* edits of the last 50 on this page.)  If the above topic ever becomes relevant, and receives consensus here on the Talk page, it can be appropriately reintroduced.  Until that time, the running consensus is that it does not belong. Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

 * How is mentioning that a business is engaged in a trademark lawsuit not relevant to the main article on that company? This lawsuit is especially noteworthy, because unlike Victoria's Secret suing Victor's Little Secret (which Victor won), the defendant's name "South Butt" does not sound remotely like the plaintiff's name "North Face," and is therefore clearly a frivolous lawsuit. The people who keep deleting this information must be employees of the North Face. The comments should be added back and North Face's censors should be banned from posting. Bostoner (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Made in China
Greetings,

I am planning to cite video evidence of the North Face retail store in Uptown Minneapolis selling products that are made in China. I am open to suggestions, thoughts, ideas, criticism etc. --HardwareHate (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this would be good for. Anyhow it's well known, that TNF produces some of their products in China.
 * BUT: This can't lead to the point that every product with TNF trademark on it and being labeled as "Made in China" is authentic.
 * By the way: Many trademarks produce their products in Asian countries (like TNF does, same for Nike, Adidas, Puma...) -- ReneRomann (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Many trademark brand names have Wiki pages that address the fact that their products are manufactured in China, especially Nike. However, there are Wiki readers like me who may be under the impression that TNF products are Made in America (specifically San Leandro, CA) and become bewildered when, in fact, they are not. Authentic or not, any item made in China (or the like) with an "American" price tag should be clearly labeled and addressed. HardwareHate (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's the deal. Are you to stupid to read the tags on the item that CLEARLY say "Made in China/El Salvador/Mexico/wherever"? It seems so as you did similar edits (I'd say vandalism edits because it's no deal if it's clearly marked - and it is on both, the original price tag and on the inside labels).
 * As an european customer, I'm wondering how dumb some americans can be if there are such tags on clothes that say "KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE" or any (in my eyes stupid) care instructions for a microwave oven not to use that microwave oven to dry pets...
 * As I already said: TNF (and other brands) are manufacturing their products in Asia due to smaller production costs. This is widely known and this is no problem as long as the quality is not being dropped.
 * But the point that you want to emphasize is that any item made in China may be of poor quality. And this is definitely NOT the case. There are fakes around - which use cheapest materials and bad workmanship (e.g. only single-threaded seams instead of double or tripple stiching, using outer shell materials without any kind of water-resistand but breathable coating). And these fakes are the problem.
 * The "original" products fabricated in Asia use the same high-quality fabrics and workmanship that they'd do if being produced in the United States. Because the costs for the fabrics are the same, the only thing where such brands as TNF can save money are in loan costs. And these costs (especially the price for a worker in Asia doing sewing compared to the price for a worker doing the sewing in the US together with the price for the factory) are the only way to reduce the price for the items being produced.
 * And as far as the people are not willing to pay the actual price for an item being made in China, they're less willing to pay the price for an item being made in the USA. This in fact is the problem.
 * Please don't tell me that this is NOT a problem as I see enough people around that like this search for the cheapest item without looking for any kind of quality. And the brands are adressing the mass that like this "cheapest" price politics.
 * There are only few who are ready to pay 500 to 700 US-$ for a single jacket that'll last for the next 10 years, but the wide mass want's to have the same jacket for 50 US-$. And this CAN'T work.
 * P.S.: Before you post such nonsense that TNF-items aren't marked where they're produced, you may have a close look to both the TNF-hangtag (even from a faked jacket it's stated below the EAN price code, compare: ) and on the inside tags . There is a definite statement where the items' being made. -- ReneRomann (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said TNF products aren't marked where they're produced. All I'm asking for is the TNF Wiki page to address the fact that their authentic items are manufactured overseas. I was reading the TNF Wiki page and browsing their website before I decided to shop at the local TNF retailer which is when I saw the tags that read "Made in CHINA/TAIWAN etc." If it's true, it's widely known, and it's not a problem because the quality is the same, why not add it to the wiki page? Why does that offend you so much? I understand there is a language barrier here between you and I so if I say "thank you" and it comes across as "party with your dad's penis and choke" in German, I do apologize. I'm having a hard time understanding much of what you write, but I'm trying to work with you here. DO NOT PERSONALLY ATTACK ME. Thank you. HardwareHate (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Strange that despite the 'Net, instant comms., when Americans discover something heretofore unknown to them, they gotta believe it's unknown to everyone. It's true of our politicos, as anyone can see.

 * In fact, The North Face was founded during a period of intense enthusiasm by outdoorsy types for Chinese "duck down" as the premier insulator. After trade with China opened up in the early 70s, duck down became a commoner commodity, but my The North Face sleeping bag, c. 1971, is lined with duck down & set me back $50 back then. It's still comfy, but it's not any more labeled Made in China than the John Deere farm equipment is labeled Made in Belgium, although it is! BubbleDine (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Many TNF products are produced in South America as well, not just China. There are also some products that are produced in America. It seems that trying to mark every products distinction is not needed. Apriestofgix (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I think where a companies products are made should be included as part of the basic information about any company that makes things. The fact that it's in China, or wherever, is not that important, unless (as alleged) the product has "Made in USA" on the label, and then if there's RS to support it, that fact should be included.Tym Whittier (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Death of founder
I recently added the death of North Face's founder, Douglas Tompkins to the History section but it was removed soon after by DASonnenfeld. Wanted to hear what what users thought about whether or not the content is notable enough to include. I mean he was the founder of the company, what I added was only a brief mention, and by no means was I pushing WP:MEMORIAL. Meatsgains (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Hi Meatsgains, Thank you for your note and contributions to Wikipedia. Tompkins' death is covered well in the biographical article about him. The question here is, Does it tell the reader anything notable about the subject of this article, The North Face, Inc.? Even as short as it was, the sentence seemed out of place, especially given his long separation from the firm. Now if he had been CEO, active in the company and his death had thrown the firm into a successional dilemma, then yes, it could be relevant. But that was not the case. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 * Understandable. Because Tompkins was no longer associated with North Face (I just realized for awhile too) then it does not directly effect the company. Thanks for the response. Meatsgains (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Retail Store Information
The current store counts are outdated. Retail store count should be 63. Apriestofgix (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source? Meatsgains (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Current TNF Employee as well as aggregating the stores here. https://www.thenorthface.com/utility/store-locator.html Apriestofgix (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you manually counting all 63 stores in the link you provided? Meatsgains (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What the North Face means
The only citation for what "The North Face" means is some generic statement about how the north face of mountains are generally the coldest, hardest, etc... and the notation goes to Thenorthface.com. This is nothing more than a self promotion and believe the line should be removed altogether due to lack of actual citation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerophex (talk • contribs) 00:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The North Face of a mountain is usually the hardest part to climb. Therefore the name is a call to that, and how TNF will help you conquer The North Face Apriestofgix (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's nothing but another marketing line Apriestofgix. Do you work for The North Face? "Generally speaking" does not indicate any facts, and citing the company website as a source (and not even any kind of direct link to anything on the website that explains the name) is just plain old advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerophex (talk • contribs) 03:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The source is here, just click on the first link under the Company Background section. The company specifically explains "Why is the company called The North Face". Additional sources are not need to support this information. It is not marketing it is fact. Meatsgains (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

When did "Generally accepted" become synanymous with "fact"? Aerophex (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a fact because the company states that is why they are called The North Face. Its not that difficult. Meatsgains (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure it could be a marketing ploy, sure it could be any number of things. However TNF chooses to say that is their inspiration for their name. THAT much is fact. You can disagree with TNFs source material, but Wikipedia is not here to validate the validity of primary sources. If you have a problem with it, contact TNF. Apriestofgix (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That is what sources say, so that is what we are to add. Meatsgains (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016
Could somebody change the headquarters from "[Alameda, California]" to "[Alameda], [California]" to direct both the city and state as separate articles? Along with the "[United States]" to "[United States|U.S.]"?

71.163.81.242 (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Alameda is a DAB and Alameda, California is the specific target (WP:SPECIFICLINK). Also, United States shouldn't be linked per MOS:OVERLINK. — JJMC89  (T·C) 05:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Eagle Mt. MN
I've removed unsourced statement that the name of the company was arrived at following a hike in Minnesota. According to Wikipedia the founder was focused on mountaineering around the time the company started. Eagle Mt. is a small hill. He had no apparent connection to Minnesota.

I don't know that the unsourced statement is untrue, but it intuitively seems unlikely and it lacks a source.

Badiacrushed (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

COI?
So, seeing as The North Face has apparently been editing their photos into several pages without COI disclosure, I was wondering if there was any evidence that this page was edited by them too? TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just in case- I have tagged it due to my suspicions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/05/29/lets-talk-about-the-north-face-defacing-wikipedia/ ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I think this is an absolutely prudent thing to do. Jessamyn (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

 * I've got a lot of experience investigating COI and UPE and have reviewed all the page history. I don't see anything to indicate that this article has been edited by COI or UPE editors so will remove the template. SmartSE (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing

 * I added the controversy to the page after learning of it on the new and thinking it was relevant + had reputable sources. I think I will move the paragraph of the litigation there too next, as I think it is more relevant as a controversy than as "Reputed style accessory". It would be nice to have more opinions as to not be biased against the brand. I will not touch it further however until the news cycle goes off. jynus (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that the added section is unencyclopedic and potentially unfair to The North Face. Realistically, this won't be of note or interest 10 years down the line; it might seem a bit petty to (seemingly) use our pull to 'retaliate' for an abuse of our system. I think the section in Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia should probably stay, but the paragraph here shouldn't. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 17:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the small size of the article that section was, in my view, UNDUE weight to the event. I have instead changed it to a see also section as I agree it does merit inclusion in the Conflifct-of-interest article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why you reverted this without participating in this discussion? Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 22:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice the discussion. I think we need a couple of sentences in the main article, but I bow to the will over the voters. Bkatcher (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I had originally improved a citation in the removed material, but I do not object to its deletion, because WP:UNDUE may actually be a point here. Maybe a longer article can be written about The North Face, allowing for the existence of a small controversy section as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Kevin ( aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 06:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If this article were fully developed, it would be long enough that I'd say it'd be appropriate to add a sentence or two about the controversy. As it is, mentioning the controversy seems a little WP:UNDUE. But it's a bit of a catch-22, since if we withhold content because it'd be undue while the article is at this stage, it won't get beyond this stage anytime soon. So I'd lean toward including at least one short sentence about the COI editing, but not more than that. - Sdkb (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are articles in The Guardian, BBC News, and the NYT ; I think that most events with three such articles would merit at least a sentence or two. Docentation (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I continue to suggest that See Also allows readers who are interested in this issue to find more information while not tilting the balance of coverage here. We all care about Wikipedia, it's why we're here, but that doesn't mean that this brand's connection to Wikipedia deserves an outsized (UNDUE) place in coverage of the topic.Right now there are 16 sentences in the article. I continue to suggest it is UNDUE to give 11% of the article over to this tempest. This is a clearly notable company for which there is coverage of a variety of topics from highly reliable sources not included in this article right now. For instance all three of those organizations covered the death of founder Tompkins and at least the Guardian and NYT's writeups seem to have encyclopedic detail relevant to this article not included at the moment. When editing about Wikipedia all of us are connected contributors and so I think we should be extra cautious about when and where we include Wikipedia related content in articles nominally unrelated to the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * On topical balance: I don’t think that the present shortness of the article should prevent us from adding material, even if that temporarily gives undue weight to a particular story—otherwise, all edits would have to be very large! As for our connexion to Wikipedia, you are of course correct that we are not disinterested. But I still think that a story that appears in at least ten press articles including three in very mainstream sources would merit a mention in the body of the text. Is your stance that even in a long article two or three sentences would be to excessively cover the matter? Docentation (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See my response to Teratix below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Is the COI controversy that is currently on-going notable enough to be included in a "controversies" section of the article? -- Hermit 20xx 13:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Three articles in mainstream press merit at least a mention, especially considering how small the article is at present and the sparseness of sourcing overall. For example, consider the mention of armed robbery of the jackets, which gets two sentences despite only having a single supporting source, or the legal battle with The South Butt which has the same number of sources and yet has a full paragraph dedicated to it. If we were really to be consistent with the application of WP:DUE and remove mention of conflict-of-interest editing, then we would need to cut a significant portion of the rest of the article. – Teratix ₵ 13:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Point well taken. I removed the specific Washington robbery as a mention and added a second reliable source which discussed the trend in general - that article from the Cut likely also has a lot of other detail which could be incorporated into the article. I also added an article I found which mentions this same sort of thing happening 20ish years later in South Korea. This is my general point - there is a lot of coverage from reliable sources about this notable company that is not present at the moment in this article. While it could be argued that even in a well developed article that this Wikipedia contretemps would fail NOTNEWS, I wouldn't really care too much if it weren't for the UNDUE aspect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's all extreme recentism. While Wikipedians love regurgitating the news of the day (especially when it's about Wikipedia), is this so important in the history of the company that it warrants its own devoted section? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, folks. And note that coat-rack sections titled "Controversy" likely violate NPOV, and are discouraged per WP:CRITS (an essay, but a damn good one). --Animalparty! (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

it may be correct to reinstate the section but consensus seems to be either a few sentences or a see also link as opposed to the big section which you restored; presumably regardless of coverage in sources undue weight is still a consideration? (In this case I happen to agree that it is notable though, but the edit summary understandably doesn’t seem to consider this.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docentation (talk • contribs) 21:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC) and SmartSE (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

 * This seens to me like a small blip in the history of a company. There's no way it should be given it's own section here per WEIGHT regardless of how many newspaper's history. I think it would fit best as a couple of sentences in the history section. See also should only be used temporarily and it is always better to give the reader a summary of what can be found by clicking through to the next article. SmartSE (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Barkeep49's cut was so far that it literally doesn't say what happened. I've summarised considerably, but now a reader will know what's going on. I'd suggest this is making really quite a lot of RSes, and that material's going to be here for quite a while - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My cut wasn't doing anything more but restoring some version of it while we discuss this here - something I had done at length. So I am surprised to see my edit restoring that short form while we work towards consensus reverted. FWIW my thinking largely aligns with and so even if we do end up at "include" it should be with-in the history section rather than its own section. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You've been active on these pages so I will again ask why you feel, given this ongoing discussion with multiple editors expressing a range of opinions, entitled to make a substantial change to a section, and to then to reinstate these changes against my revert and repeated discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Because cutting it as much as you did was pretty clearly cutting it way too far, and especially at a time when a lot of people were specifically looking up The North Face on Wikipedia and would have been wondering about this precise event. We are, after all, here to be useful, and we're not in any way short of really high-quality independent third-party RSes on this matter - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Whatever else you guys think about this can we at least avoid publishing versions of that section with typos due to wild-west cuts and edits? Whether it stays or goes, it still needs to be professional. --Ejl389 (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel that a few sentences about advertising practices is well deserved given significant media coverage, which is an indication of general interest. Graywalls (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * is this an endorsement of the compromise reached here or a suggestion it's incorrect? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it's undue at all. We could forget all together that it was about Wikipedia, and the advertising practices and ethical consideration makes this issue inclusion worthy on their own weight. The only way to really keep due/undue in balance for anything is to add things simultaneously, but that's not really consistently with the way we build articles bit by bit as materials come available. Graywalls (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed text
There seems to be loose consensus here to keep mention of the controversy as brief as possible, leaving more substantial coverage for the Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia page. I propose that, rather than keeping it as a separate section, we fold it into the history section and make it a paragraph there, using something like the following for the text:
 * In May 2019, marketing agency Leo Burnett Tailor Made revealed that they had surreptitiously replaced photos of popular outdoor destinations on Wikipedia with photos featuring North Face products in an attempt to get these products to appear more prominently in search engine results. Following widespread media coverage and criticism from the Wikimedia Foundation, The North Face ended and apologized for the campaign, and the product placement was undone.

Even this much will be WP:UNDUE given that the history section is currently so short, but presumably as this article matures and the history section gets fleshed out, this level of detail will become appropriate in context. Thoughts, everyone? - Sdkb (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think any UNDUE is more that the rest of the history is lacking in notable third-party RS coverage. But that's about the right length of para for this. I think the present text is fine, though - yours cuts more than needs to be cut I think. It's important to keep in mind that there is, for this event, considerable high quality third-party RS coverage - this is actually an important event, if we judge by RS coverage, and that coverage won't go away. If other events overtake it, they can get covered like this in due course. But this appears, from the RS evidence, to actually be a remarkable and noteworthy thing that just happened. If it turns out not to be in a year, we can pump up other stuff to compensate - but I don't see why we should hobble an article that a lot of people are looking at, and you can bet they specifically expect to be informed of this precise event - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can support this text as a compromise with it belonging in the history rather than its own section (given concerns about UNDUE and WP:CRITS). I disagree that the reason the history section is short is because of a lack of RS - there are plenty of RS out there to cover the company's history as a whole. I've called out three of them in this discussion, inserted one of them in the article, and found others while browsing around the topic to make sure I wasn't off base with my UNDUE concerns. The idea that there is are a lot of readers coming to this article now is a fair one - that's why we should make it easy for them to find more complete coverage at Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia. We are not trying to write a newspaper we're trying to write an encyclopedia and so making sure that our coverage will be enduring - because as this article shows the insertion of an event in the news can linger a long time (see the Washington DC robbery).I will say on the "it's getting a lot of attention now" topic that I think it's all the more reason for us to give this appropriate weight. it really bothers me that we've repeatedly expanded coverage which goes against whatever consensus there has been in this discussion. I am outraged by North Face's actions. My outrage doesn't mean shit in terms of what we should be writing an enecylopedia. It bears remembering that basically all of us are connected contributors in this case and so we cannot let our own (justifiable) emotions drive coverage or try to get our readers to understand our outrage. We should, instead, be endeavoring to write a neutral long-lasting article on the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 * "I've called out three of them in this discussion, inserted one of them in the article" - right, so the actual answer is to add the stuff you found, not arbitrarily cut other stuff that's excellently-sourced because you feel it has too many words, or could hypothetically be covered somewhere else in the future - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * David, I'm somewhat frustrated by these responses here. From what I can see, Barkeep has argued (and I agree) that the article in its current state violates UNDUE, a part of NPOV, one of our core content policies. You don't seem to substantially disagree. He's also made an edit to bring the article to an NPOV-compliant state. People here have reverted that edit, restoring the NPOV-noncompliant article. Instead of backing up the edits to give due weight, now you're saying that the only way Barkeep should address the NPOV problems is by himself expanding the rest of an article that presumably he doesn't have the time, energy, and willingness to work on (otherwise, presumably he would have already). That's not how it works – he's a volunteer as much as we are, and right now, the presence of the significant section on the Wikipedia controversy is not NPOV-compliant, as most participants on this talk page seem to agree. We don't get to say that something is fine because we're giving it due weight if we imagine that there's a lot more content on the page. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 17:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the removal of content this well-sourced, as I've noted. I feel the removal is not appropriate. Barkeep claimed there was sourcing for more content; the correct move would indeed then to be to add this claimed content, not to arbitrarily remove well-sourced content while failing to add the content he was claiming there were sources for. And the removal does seem arbitrary, particularly in the circumstances - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're mixing up two things I'm saying. Let me attempt to clarify. Thing 1: I am saying that right now I think coverage of this incident is UNDUE owing to the fact that the article is a Start Class article. Thing 2: If the article were more fully developed I would suggest that Sdkb's wording would be correct coverage. So as a compromise I can get behind inclusion of that now in the history section but my first choice remains thing 1. As L235 accurately hypothesizes, as a volunteer I'm uninterested in doing major content creation in this article beyond the better sourcing for the robbery contention I already did . But this in no way undercuts my policy based concerns about what inclusion of the information means. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and implement my proposed text, since the prevailing consensus seems to be that the current text is too much, and since my proposed text has at least been aired here whereas the text in the article does not appear to have any consensus behind it. I think the issue of how to approach WP:UNDUE in less-developed articles is something that merits more general discussion, so I plan to bring it up at the village pump or somewhere when I get a chance. In the meantime, I'd encourage any editors with the inclination to do so to work on expanding the non-Wikipedia controversy parts of this page, as the more content is added there, the less unbalanced the controversy stuff will be in proportion. - Sdkb (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sdkb that looks good to me. SmartSE (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion at the pump on the broader issue is here if any of you want to participate. - Sdkb (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is fine. I've added Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia as a see-also, for the readers coming to this article specifically for this - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That is already linked in the text so shouldn't be in see also per MOS:NOTSEEALSO. SmartSE (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, correct! Removed - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The current version looks great to me. Vermont (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that this approach is optimal. A whole section was clearly excessive, but some coverage is a good idea. Docentation (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

[ Just a note that Slate published a piece about this page today which quotes myself,, and. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * that's a great article! Good thing we were all on our best behaviour ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to a computer right now, but someone should add the Template:Press tag to this talk page. Sdkb (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Separate article on the kerfluffle
Okay, I know that this is a bit far-fetched, but considering post-incident coverage from Slate, PR Week, AdAge, etc, not including the coverage already mentioned above - would this be notable enough for its own article? Juxlos (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe? I'd prefer to see coverage in a longer time-frame than 2 weeks later to demonstrate sustained coverage or some indication that it needs a spin-out from Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia which has, rightly, the far more extensive coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah, put it over there if it's worth adding! - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Founding Date
Hi Everyone,

The North Face was actually founded in 1966, not 1968. Source - TNF Employee and it's also on our website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan5499 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , did the SF Chronicle get the date wrong or does the company simply consider its founding as of its purchase by Klopp. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022
Change Prince George County, Virginia to Prince George's County, Maryland.

The referenced Washington Times article (16) cited describes the location of the incident as "Prince George's County" which is in Maryland, and mentions locations like "Capitol Heights" which are in Prince George's County, Maryland. There is no "Prince George's County" in Virginia. 73.128.146.38 (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ SpinningCeres 00:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

“Flexible tent poles”
I’ve seen on wiki that Doug Tompkins is credited with designing TNF’s tents using flexible tent poles. In fact, TNFs dome tents, featuring flexible tent poles, were designed by me (Mark Erickson) and Bruce Hamilton and introduced in 1974-5, long after Tompkins’ involvement. 2601:643:8400:9E50:10C8:D87E:B499:61B6 (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Uyghurs
How is it possible that No one even mentionned the fact that TNF is deeply involved in using Uyghurs for the making of their products? DesertMaus (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 * https://www.saveuighur.org/83-companies-linked-to-uighur-forced-labor/ https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/china-83-major-brands-implicated-in-report-on-forced-labour-of-ethnic-minorities-from-xinjiang-assigned-to-factories-across-provinces-includes-company-responses/ https://actions.sumofus.org/a/just-don-t-do-it DesertMaus (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing redux
given the fairly extensive discussion at Talk:The North Face it would only be prudent to maintain the status quo ante until there is some opportunity for further discussion (including of the suggestions above). I’ve therefore reverted, which is not to say that I’ve a firm opinion either way. Docentation (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Oh, I hadn't seen the linked discussion. Thanks for letting me know.
 * I've had a read through and from my understanding, there was at best a very weak consensus to include it. We can now look at it from a four-year-on perspective, and in my opinion this is now (and arguably back then) completely undue. There is not a single article post May 2019 covering the topic and the entire issue boils down to "company tries advertising product; it backfires". We (correctly) don't cover Burger King's OK Google controversy at all, and that's a comparably poorly received advertising campaign. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me, but I’ll ping those from the discussion above who might think differently:, . Docentation (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like the scourge of creating inappropriate controversy sections has struck this article. Everything there should be merged into the history section, and there certainly should not be subsections on each individual incident.
 * The debate in my mind is between having one sentence vs. nothing, with my view hinging on how often The North Face comes up in the news. There certainly hasn't been any enduring coverage, but then again, no one has written a history of the company since 2019 in which it would come up or not, and it did get quite a lot of coverage at the time (e.g. NY Times; it's still the top Google result for Times coverage of the company). The existence of coverage elsewhere on Wikipedia that we can link to is also a small factor in favor of some sort of mention.
 * A one-sentence mention might look something like this: In 2019, The North Face faced consumer backlash and apologized after its marketing agency surreptitiously added photos featuring its apparel to Wikipedia articles on popular outdoor destinations.
 * I'd also recommend that whatever we go with, we include a hidden comment to try to stem the pressure toward overcoverage in the future. {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 16:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your proposed sentence would be suitable. Would also be better to merge it into the history section. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 01:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like there’s consensus here so I’ll make the change now. Docentation (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 * So I'm not sure it warrants great coverage, but it's a thing that happened and got quite a bit of coverage, and I think rates at least slight mention - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * specifically I think it's OK as is, though if others want to cut it down I won't object particularly - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Outdoor Gear history

 * outdoorinov8.com
 * Compass: Charting the Evolution of Outdoor Gear
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20180207171632/http://www.outdoorinov8.com/
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20141008221022/http://www.inov8.au.com/compass/
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20120502091817/http://homepage.mac.com/inov8/Compass/
 * The History of American Backpacking Gear Pioneers 1935 to the Present at oregonphotos.com
 * .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2023
This paragraph is repeated, remove the duplicate:

On 15 November 1967, for "Rite of Winter", Steve Miller Blues Band and Jesse Fuller, played, at the Old Stanford Barn, to celebrate, the opening of the second store in the Old Stanford Barn,[10] near the Stanford Shopping Center, near Stanford University.[11] Majortony866 (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: It seems that that is not really repeated; either someone committed subtle vandalism, or that is correct. Shadow311 (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change
— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:The North Face


text:
User:Asriothman

born:24th april 1986 residing in tmpines,singapore currently scholing in Republic polytechnic previous schools:griffiths primary and greenview secondary enjoys soccer and music visit asriothman.blogspot.com for more details

title: User:Asriothman


text: User talk:129.170.237.223

title: User talk:129.170.237.223


text:
Three Guineas

Three Guineas is a book-length essay by Virginia Woolf, published in June 1938.

Background
Although Three Guineas is a work of non-fiction, it was initially conceived as a "novel–essay" which would tie up the loose ends left in her earlier work, A Room of One's Own. The book was to alternate between fictive narrative chapters and non-fiction essay chapters, demonstrating Woolf's views on war and women in both types of writing at once. This unfinished manuscript was published in 1977 as The Pargiters.

When Woolf realised the idea of a "novel–essay" wasn't working, she separated the two parts. The non-fiction portion became Three Guineas. The fiction portion became Woolf's most popular novel during her lifetime, The Years, which charts social change from 1880 to the time of publication through the lives of the Pargiter family. It was so popular, in fact, that pocket-sized editions of the novel were published for soldiers as leisure reading during World War II.

Structure and overview
The entire essay is structured as a response to an educated gentleman who has written a letter asking Woolf to join his efforts to help prevent war. War was looming in 1936–7 and the question was particularly pressing to Woolf, a committed pacifist. In the gentleman's letter (he is never named), he asks Woolf her opinion about how best to prevent war and offers some practical steps. Woolf opens her response by stating first, and with some slight hyperbole, that this is "a remarkable letter—a letter perhaps unique in the history of human correspondence, since when before has an educated man asked a woman how in her opinion war can be prevented." Despite the remarkable nature of the letter, Woolf has left it unanswered because as the daughter of an educated man, without access or place in the public world of professions, universities, societies, and government, she fears that there are fundamental differences that will make her "impossible for [educated men] to understand." This sets up the fundamental tension of the work between, on the one hand, the desire to leave behind the stifling private home so as to help prevent war, an aim that Woolf certainly shares with her interlocutor, and, on the other, an unwillingness to simply ally with the public world of men. "Behind us lies the patriarchal system; the private house, with its nullity, its immorality, its hypocrisy, its servility. Before us lies the public world, the professional system, with its possessiveness, its jealousy, its pugnacity, its greed."

In the course of responding to the educated man's questions and practical suggestions, Woolf turns to two other letters: a request for funds to help rebuild a woman's college and a request for support for an organisation to help women enter the professions (professional life). Both allow Woolf to articulate her criticisms of the structure of education and the professions, which mostly involves showing how they encourage the very attitudes that lead to Fascism both at home and abroad. Woolf does not refuse the values of education and public service outright but suggests conditions which the daughters of educated men will need to heed if they are to prevent being corrupted by the public order. She imagines, for example, a new kind of college that avoids teaching the tools of domination and pugnacity, "an experimental college, an adventurous college…. It should teach… the art of understanding other people's lives and minds…. The teachers should be drawn from the good livers as well as from the good thinkers."

In the final section, Woolf returns from the topics of education and the professions to the larger questions of preventing war and the practical measure suggested for doing so. In it she argues that although she agrees with her interlocutor that war is evil, they must attempt to eradicate it in different ways. "And since we are different," Woolf concludes, "our help must be different." Thus, the value of Woolf's opinion (and help) on how to prevent war lies in its radical difference from the ways of men. Its impossibility of being completely understood is, then, the condition of its usefulness.

Themes
Woolf wrote the essay to answer three questions, each from a different society:

 * From an anti-war society: "How should war be prevented?"
 * From a women's college building fund: "Why does the government not support education for women?" (Actually, the fund was a metaphor for family private funds to send the "boys of the family" to college and not the women.)
 * From a society promoting employment of professional women: "Why are women not allowed to engage in professional work?"

The book is composed of Woolf's responses to a series of letters. The question and answer format creates a sense of dialogue and debate on the politically charged issues the essay tackles, rather than just presenting simple polemical diatribes on each topic. The principle of dialogue is one that informs much of Woolf's work, and is also seen in her novels when she gives voice to different classes and marginalised groups in society through a diversity of characterisations. For example, the sky-writing scene in Mrs. Dalloway includes characters with a variety of class-influenced dialects. The "guineas" of the book's title are themselves a badge of social class, the money amount of 21 shillings (1.05 pounds sterling) for which no coin any longer existed, but which was still the common denomination for solely upper-class transactions (e.g., purchase of pictures or race-horses, lawyers' or medical specialists' fees, and so on.). She wrote "It is much to be regretted that no lives of maids … are to be found in the Dictionary of National Biography" which her father had created. (In time her servant Nellie Boxall would be included in its successor.

The epistolary format also gives the reader the sense of eavesdropping on a private conversation. We listen in on Woolf's suggestions to a barrister on how to prevent war, to a women's league on how to support females in the professions, and to a women's college on how to encourage female scholarship. All three sources have written to Woolf asking for financial donations. What she donates, though, is her advice and philosophy.

Woolf was eager to tie the issues of war and feminism together in what she saw as a crucial point in history. She and her husband Leonard had visited both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in the early part of the decade. The ideology of fascism was an affront to Woolf's conviction in pacifism as well as feminism: Nazi philosophy, for example, supported the removal of women from public life.

Contemporary responses
Q. D. Leavis (literary critic) wrote a scathing critique of Three Guineas shortly after its publication in 1938. She denounces the essay because it is only concerned with 'the daughters of educated men', seeing Woolf's criticisms as irrelevant to most women because her wealth and aristocratic ancestry means she is 'insulated by class'. Elsewhere Three Guineas was better received. Woolf reports a favorable response in her diary of 7 May 1938. "I am pleased this morning because Lady Rhonda writes that she is profoundly excited and moved by Three Guineas. Theo Bosanquet, who has a review copy, read her extracts. And she thinks it may have a great effect, and signs herself my grateful outsider."

Recent responses
The views expressed in Three Guineas have been described as feminist, pacifist, anti-fascist, and anti-imperialist. Feminist historian Jill Liddington has praised Three Guineas as "an eloquent and impish attack on patriarchal structures", notes how the book puts forward the argument that "men's power under patriarchy dovetails with militarism", and claims "Three Guineas offers an important bridge between the earlier feminist flowering and the later 1980s wave of a women's peace movement".

In 2002, City Journal published a critique of Three Guineas by the conservative essayist Theodore Dalrymple, "The Rage of Virginia Woolf" (later reprinted in Dalrymple's anthology, Our Culture, What's Left of It), in which Dalrymple contended that the book is "a locus classicus of self-pity and victimhood as a genre in itself" and that "the book might be better titled: How to Be Privileged and Yet Feel Extremely Aggrieved". In response, Woolf scholar Elizabeth Shih defended Three Guineas and claimed Dalrymple's article was full of "ad hominem moments". Shih argued that Dalrymple "obtusely and consistently misreads Woolf's hyperbole", interpreting literally Woolf's comments about burning male-dominated colleges, and Woolf's likening women using their sexuality to control men to prostitution. Shih also criticised Dalrymple's attacks on Woolf's anti-militarism and her calls for working-class education. Shih suggested Dalrymple's objection to Three Guineas was due to his opposition to Woolf's "politicization of the private lives of women".

title: Three Guineas


text:
User talk:Koblentz

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Koblentz! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Acetic Acid 05:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. As for clean-up, you're in luck. We have a very large clean-up taskforce, dividing up into sections based on specific jobs. It sounds like you want to do housekeeping work. You can sign up here. A list of articles that need to be fixed up are listed here. They are arranged by the day they were nominated to be cleaned. Last, but not least, there is a guide to cleaning here. Happy editing. :) Acetic Acid 09:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I have just added a task to your desk. Andreww 07:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC) Hi, I have an additional task to your desk. Andreww 05:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I assert that I have voted for number 9.

Non-free rationale for File:Ricochet.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ricochet.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Koblentz


text:
User talk:Morpheios Melas

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Morpheios Melas! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Acetic Acid 05:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ryan! I have to contribute 1 year in russian wikipedia, so i known rules of wikipedia. In english wikipedia I only make interwiki to russian. As you see my english is very very bad. :( --Morpheios Melas 05:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's good that you're familar with most of it. Just remember to add a Babel to your user page so other users will know you don't speak native English. Acetic Acid 06:12, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok. --Morpheios Melas 06:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Primorye
Какой нафиг спам??! Спасибо! Made my day! Эх, сейчас бы Милкиса в жабры залить :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Vladivostok industry.jpg
Why you don't upload it to commons? It will be very usefull and in other language chapters... Sory for my broken enlish. --Morpheios Melas 06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a member of this commons, but you have my permission to upload any of my pictures to this commons with a GFDL license. I am the photographer and I say you can. --Kaspersky Trust 15:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for permission! :) --Morpheios Melas 05:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Note: Kaspersky Trust is a sockpuppet of banned User:Zephram Stark. Most likely, he is not really the author of this image.  --JW1805 (Talk) 04:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiZnanie
Your comments on WikiZnanie are clearly pushing a particular point-of-view. I suggest you add facts about the Russian Wikipedia on an article about the Russian Wikipeda, instead of attempting to convert the WikiZnanie article into a competition between the two projects. Thanks. Strom 07:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine to include statistics about WikiZnanie in the WikiZnanie article, but not to use stats about Russian Wikipedia or how one grows slowly or quickly. The main idea is to not push a point of view (see WP:NPOV. In general, there are several negative implications on that page that are simply unnecessary. I will tone them down, but leave them in (for now). Thanks! Strom 04:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I only want to show, that grows in Wikiznanie stoped (not only in compare with en.wiki, but and with ru.wiki) But I understand you position and will not add compare. --Morpheios Melas 07:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Morpheios Melas


text:
User talk:Suwarrow

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Suwarrow! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Acetic Acid 05:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:CookIslands-Rarotonga-SouthBeach-20040815.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:Suwarrow


text:
Talk:Jerry Orbach/Archive 1

Buck Rogers role; death
So, I was watching an old episode of Buck Rogers, and Jerry plays an evil disco-DJ, piping subliminal messages into the minds of teenagers througout the galaxy. Funny I never see this role mentioned in any bios of him. Sad he is gone, he was one of a kind.

 * Very sad. Jerry Orbach, a brilliant,great actor and person has dies. R.I.P--ThomasK 01:50, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Photo
Can we get a better picture?AndyL 17:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The presently picture is in my view excellent. ThomasK 07:14, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Do we need two pictures of him as Lenny Briscoe? Lefty 03:10, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

Before Briscoe
Should we mention the fact that his first appearance on Law and Order was not as Briscoe, but as a defense attorney in an earlier season? DS 12:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jerry Orbach/Archive 1


text:
File:1974 america sings.jpg

Summary
America Signs Album Cover

title: File:1974 america sings.jpg