Carte Rouge

Hello, Carte Rouge! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Momofuku (restaurants)

If you can find verifiable, reliable sources which substantiate the notability of this company, please do so on this page: User:Carte Rouge/Momofuku (restaurants) <-- a subpage in your own user space.

Once you are finished, let me know and I'll help you with any issues which would cause it to become speedily deleted again; then we'll reintroduce it into the main article space. Sound good? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! Feel free to hit me up on my talk page with any questions. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally, unless the blog is run by a notable person who does not have a conflict of interest is posting about the topic. The content must usually be notable for it to have its own article, like Rosie O'Donnell vlog of constant ranting ;-). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes these restaurants notable except for their notable owner? This information looks like it would probably best be merged into David's article. Photos, unless legally uploaded, should not be externally linked. The blog links should not go directly to the comments sections. The restaurant reviews can be cited within the article; this is better practice for giving specific references to points in an article.

Will you be editing other food-related articles, or is this your only interest? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to write articles on the notable restaurants I've visited - this was the one I was at most recently, but, unless already done, I'd like to write on per se (restaurant). WD-50, Masa (restaurant) and Alinea (restaurant) for starters, as those are the obviously-notable ones. I guess merging all the information to David Chang's article makes sense. I'll go ahead and do that. I can't look at the flikr pages from work - my assumption is that they are camera phone photos, thus legal if released acceptably. Carte Rouge (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's a bit ironic. David Chang is famous cause of the restaurants, but now he's more famous than they are, even though he's done nothing else! Carte Rouge (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

California cuisine

Not only does your edit resolve the dispute with the article, it is very well written and makes the article much more credible than it was before. Thank you. 64.238.172.212 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Momofuku Ko

I've added a note including info from the article. The only published noteworthy thing about this restaurant aside from its association with David Chang is this fact about its highly sought after reservations. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's precisely the kind of supplemental information that is enriching to Wikipedia. Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Scorecards

You removed all the scorecards for one particular organization. Do you plan on removing the scorecards given by other organizations on the same Congressmen and Congresswomen who I posted on? You'll notice that Congressmen's Wikipedia sights often contain scorecards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daredevil0405 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Scorecards are very pertinent part of a Congressman's wikipedia website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein#Congressional_scorecards

This is Dianne Feinstein's wikipedia sight. Look at the huge selection of scorecards. Feel free to add scorecards as you like to the Congressman who I have added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daredevil0405 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced? A website is a source, guy.

So...what do you NEED as a source for that guy's verbatim quote of Kucinich's telemarketting call? I live in California, and I have ALSO recieved it multiple times. In fact, I didn't bother to erase it last night after I noticed your vandalism of a verified entry (I checked, and his post was word-for-word identical to what I have on my answering machine)...If it's not undone by tonight, I'll see if I can record the thing into a clip and undo it myself and source it that way.

And he included the website of Kucinich's (referenced in the telemarketting call) petition.

If you don't Undo your invalid undo of a verified entry, I will do my best to report you to the main Wiki folks for vandalism.

Have a nice day. 75.36.197.139 (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no source for the edit presented. Please try to treat me like a fellow human being. Thanks. Carte Rouge (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congressional Scorecards

I am confused as to why you have allowed this entire list of Congressional scorecards to still stay up after our exchange? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein#Congressional_scorecards

If you are going to delete my scorecards, I ask that you stay consistent. If you haven't deleted them in 24 hours, I'll take it as a sign that you've reversed your decision on scorecards.

(Daredevil0405 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Those are notable and sourced. Your institutions scorecard is not. Please try to treat me like a human. Thanks. Carte Rouge (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is our scorecard not notable? It is "not my organization" but an organization I am interested in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daredevil0405 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You are obviously related to the organization. The listed scorecards are considered notable by Project Vote Smart. Carte Rouge (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I got the AFP scorecard from the SAME source, it comes from the SAME list of scorecards from Project Vote Smart. Please do not remove it, as it is from the same exact source as all the other scorecard listings. (Daredevil0405 (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

I have reason to believe that you are removing things for personal partisan reasons and will be reporting you accordingly, as you have removed only 1 scorecard that comes from a very large list of scorecards all deemed notable by Project Vote Smart. (Daredevil0405 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Please stop spamming your organizations scorecard across the encyclopedia. Thanks. Carte Rouge (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Carte, I have put a scorecard that was deemed notable by Vote Smart on a list of Vote Smart Congressional Scorecards. PLEASE explain why you are removing it, but not removing any other scorecard that came from the same exact source. Please treat me like a human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daredevil0405 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You are spamming a scorecard that your organization produced. Stop it. Carte Rouge (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If being listed by Project Vote Smart makes a congressional scorecard noteable, as you seem to have suggest, AFPs scorecard is notable. Either remove every scorecard, or don't remove mine. All these scorecards, including AFPS, come from the same source. Also, please do not insinuate that I work to AFP. I am merely interested in their work as a small non-profit, and I don't appreciate your personal accusation. Please argue the merits of your removing a scorecard that comes from the exact same source as every other scorecard on the page. There is no difference between the scorecard I have listed and the other scorecards on the list. AFP's scorecard comes from the same exact source (very same url link, even), as all the other scorecards that you do not remove. The Project Vote Smart website proves the notability of Americans for Prosperity's scorecard. I have listed this conflict and have requested a 3rd option. Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Please do not edit back until we've received a third opinion. I will respect the decision of a 3rd party. (Daredevil0405 (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

You added *your* scorecard to about 100 politicians. Now you are adding just *your* scorecard to one politician. Add *every* scorecard they list - that would be fine. But stop spamming *your* scorecard. Carte Rouge (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am just adding more information to one congresswomen to help enhance the article. Please do not delete and allow arbitration to take place, thank you. Please do not revert until we've received a third party opinion. You are not the sole arbiter of wikipedia content. I am now undertaking to have a third opinion, and it is rude for you to stifle the process by reverting before we get an opinion. Thank you. (Daredevil0405 (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

I am just removing information of questionable relevence to help enhance the article. Please do not add and allow arbitration to take palce, thank you. Please do not revert until we've received a third party opinion. You are not the sole arbiter of wikipedia content. I am now undertaking to have a third opinion, and it is rude for you to stifle the process by reverting before we get an opinion. Thank you. Carte Rouge (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. How do we flag the article for arbitration without having the Disputed content tag on the top? I don't mean this pejoratively or sarcastically, I'm honestly asking. I haven't had to go to arbitration before? Thanks. (Daredevil0405 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

It seems that both parties agree that a listing by Project Vote Smart is a good proxy for a notable organization. Their website at Project Vote Smart - Senator Dianne Feinstein - Interest Group Ratings clearly lists Americans For Prosperity as a listed organization. It seems that Daredevil0405 would be correct and the addition of that organization's scorecard should be included. Thanks for using the correct channels to come to a consensus on this dispute.Advocate 11:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advocate70 (talk • contribs)

You joined wikipedia yesterday. Project vote smart lists scores of scorecards - to pick just one out is disengenous, to say the least. Carte Rouge (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Carte, I agree. I'd rather have a more seasoned wikipedia editor make a third opinion. Although I appreciate Advocates willingness to help, I will wait for another, more experienced editor to give one. (Daredevil0405 (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

Well, I didn't join "yesterday" as you put it, I recently became active editing over this past week, but there is no requirement for doing what I did other than a desire to get in here and start working. But if you want someone with admin-privileges-level edits, I understand. I will tell you that I am an attorney and have policy experience working for the Institute for Government at the University of North Carolina doing much legislative work. The number of edits someone has does not necessarily reflect knowledge on an issue, and this one doesn't seem to be rocket science, but if you both want to wait, feel free.
As far as I can tell, this is the first time Carte made the point that some but not all of the scorecards on Project Vote Smart were not notable. It might help if he would define in an objective manner what he feels makes a notable scorecard, as well as Daredevil, to clarify the issue for the next 3O to look at. Simply saying that a scorecard is not notable simply because it was selectively added is not persuasive. Either it is notable and could be added or it is not. If there are other scorecards that are notable and are not included, the correct edit would be to add those notable scorecards as well, not remove one that is notable because others that are also notable are not included. Americans for Prosperity has their own entry on this site as well, so the group itself has passed Wikipedia's notability requirement, and I fail to see how their work would not also be notable. I am disinterested in this debate: I don't know this group nor do I have any opinion about the Senator. It seems to be a simple application of general notability requirements or a problem of defining what the two of you agree would make a scorecard notable.
I had removed this from the Third opinion list per the instructions, so you will need list it again if you want another third opinion.Advocate 23:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Advocate. Carte, I'll leave it up to you. Do you accept this third opinion or would you like me to repost it under active disputes? (Daredevil0405 (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Third opinion

Political score cards should not be used at all, except when they are directly relevant to the prose text of the article and/or the scoring is widely noted by independent reliable sources. Considering the vast amount of information scoring and evaluating national politicians, it would be highly inappropriate to include the information unless it is directly related to the information in the article or comprises a central part of significant coverage of the politician. It would be more appropriate to provide an external link to one or two sites providing a collection/overview of political scorecards. Vassyana (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've removed all of the scorecards. Carte Rouge (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

José Bernardo Gutiérrez de Lara School of Medicine

I've replied on my talk page. Bstone (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, regarding Michelin notability

A little while ago I removed all such restrictions or guidelines from the proposal. After review of the Michelin guide, it is rather exhaustive, at least at the one-star level. So, I've cleaned up the guideline proposal and removed all arbitrary restrictions. Mind taking a look again and sharing your thoughts? Thanks. --Kickstart70TC 00:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Scare quotes versus quotes

I don't mind the change, but the quotes were quotes, as in quoting a phrase used in the reference, not scare quotes. 7876 ann arbor street (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Quotes without attribution" are "scare quotes," according to "sources." Carte Rouge (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Brands

Hello, Carte Rouge. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Needs You!

Hi there Carte Rouge! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite?

If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things?

First off, go here and add {{Tick}} (Y) next to your name if you're still part of the project.

Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better.

You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :)

— The Potato Hose 18:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Did I do something wrong? @NeilN: Carte Rouge (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers

Regarding this, I have verified the source. What else can I do? Politrukki (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you paste the article temporarily? Perhaps there's a better quote that isn't the book jacket quote. Carte Rouge (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't post it to Wikipedia as that would be a blatant copyright violation. I could email the article to you, but you don't seem to have email enabled... Politrukki (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll be turning on my email shortly. By the time you read this, certainly. Carte Rouge (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Carte Rouge. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)