User talk:Rollinginhisgrave

Response to claims of bias

If you are coming from Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias and are looking for assistance, leave a comment below, followed by ~~~~ and you will be responded to shortly.

Thank you

A belated thanks for reviewing St. John's Shaughnessy for GA status. You left lots of good feedback that I will use to improve the article. I appreciate the work you put into the review! Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries Dclemens1971, glad it helped. I'm sure the next nomination will be in better shape. For architecture works, a place to look for emulating style/sources would be User:Epicgenius/Quality article contributions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of chocolate

The article History of chocolate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of chocolate for comments about the article, and Talk:History of chocolate/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of It is a wonderful world -- It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chocolate in savory cooking

The article Chocolate in savory cooking you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chocolate in savory cooking for comments about the article, and Talk:Chocolate in savory cooking/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Royiswariii -- Royiswariii (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Legends of Tomorrow season 3

Hello Rollinginhisgrave, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Legends of Tomorrow season 3. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #14.

GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tempering chocolate

Hello! Your submission of Tempering chocolate at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RoySmith (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Geoffrey Cuming GA review

Hi there - I would welcome the opportunity to co-review the GA nominee you suggested. What is the approach you suggest for collaborating on this? Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Dclemens1971 really glad to hear this. It depends on what you want out of it; if you do a sweep first I can do a second sweep and you can see what a different reviewer picked up and can get feedback on your reviewing. Or I can do a first sweep and you can likewise give feedback. Alternatively we can focus on your greater expertise with Anglicanism, and I'll conduct a normal review and you focus on accuracy / due weight. Approaches not mutually exclusive of course. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Why don't I do a first pass and then you can offer some feedback and pick up on anything I missed. Sound good? Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Dclemens1971 Sounds great, sounds like FAC. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've done a first pass - the rest is all yours! Talk:Geoffrey Cuming/GA1 Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Matthew Webb improvements

Hi @Rollinginhisgrave, I have done a copyedit of Matthew Webb (focusing on conciseness and neutrality), and subsequently re-nominated it for GA. I just remembered however, that I forgot to address some of your specific points from the last GA. I will do this ASAP so hold off on reviewing for the next day or so. Of course, you are not obligated to review either. It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It is a wonderful world Drop me a comment when you get to this. No rush of course. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Some chocolate for you!

	Chocolate
	For your work on the various chocolate articles such as history of chocolate, white chocolate and dark chocolate, along with being such a fantastic reviewer for my first GA Matthew Webb. It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou It is a wonderful world :) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Wrap Me Up (Jimmy Fallon and Meghan Trainor song)

Hello Rollinginhisgrave, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Wrap Me Up (Jimmy Fallon and Meghan Trainor song). At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #15.

GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for History of chocolate

On 7 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article History of chocolate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a woman was considered a witch because her husband prepared chocolate instead of her? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History of chocolate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, History of chocolate), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dark chocolate

The article Dark chocolate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dark chocolate for comments about the article, and Talk:Dark chocolate/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CosXZ -- CosXZ (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Tempered chocolate

On 13 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tempered chocolate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that researchers speculate that cocoa butter forms crystals on sugar while chocolate is tempered? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tempering chocolate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tempered chocolate), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of White chocolate

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article White chocolate you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Szmenderowiecki -- Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tomato/GA1

You have evidently quickfailed this nomination because you feel it is a long way from meeting GA criterion 2. To me, an uninvolved reader, it seems that all of your complaints are rather superficial or indeed not relevant for GA, and it seems really quite ridiculous that you would consider the article "a long way from meeting the criteria" based on what small errors are present. Since you provided minimal explanation on the review, could you please give further explanation here? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29,I've left a brief note on the nomination page about it, but I felt working my way through the start of the article the sources were not sufficiently reliable for the claims being made. For example, almost the whole introduction of the history section to my mind is unreliable sourced. Of the academic literature engaged with, the majority was a 30 year old text, and recent texts on the subject were not engaged with. I am a lot looser with quickfails when the article has been nominated in the last week, not because I have lower standards, but because I am quite reluctant to fail articles that a nominator has been waiting months for a review on. I think having to read and summarise multiple books and texts (to replace those that are insufficiently reliable and to add those not engaged with) is a reasonable amount of distance from the GACR to receive a quickfail. I dislike the isolated nature of GA with single reviewers, so I sincerely appreciate the feedback. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The GA criteria do not require "high-quality" sources in the way the FA criteria do—all they require are reliable sources. What does it matter if a source is 30 years old? That is nowhere near the age where we need to worry about reliability. I understand the lower willingness to fail long-nominated articles, but you should be careful that doesn't lead towards a bias towards failing recently-nominated ones. Thanks for replying, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue with reliability around age of sourcing when more recent academic sourcing exists is that the field is being actively researched, and the information risks being outdated. The source may still be up to date with current literature, but to make that assessment that literature needs to be engaged with. Hence why I don't think this falls into the high quality sourcing standard (although my comment on Etymonline probably did, I should have put that in a suggestions subsection, but that was not taken into consideration with the quickfail even if I did not express that I made that distinction.)

Chiswick Chap, I don't think I needed the night to sleep on it, I think AirshipJungleman29 has got it right in saying that I erred into a bias; here where I believe that reviewer time at GAN is the most precious resource at GA and reviewers should be more willing to fail so work is performed out of the GAN system than in it. I apologise, I think I would have still failed it per my reading of the article's sourcing, but it also wasn't fair to you to face the GACR and a personal standard. Taking it on moving forward. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Working on it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I fixed all the issues, awaiting your input. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get to this over the next few hours. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, I've re-opened the GAN page for that purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of White chocolate

The article White chocolate you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:White chocolate and Talk:White chocolate/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Szmenderowiecki -- Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Chocolate Room

On 23 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chocolate Room, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the original exhibition of art installation Chocolate Room was shut down after attracting an "army of ants"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chocolate Room. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chocolate Room), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m so glad to see Ruscha on the front page! I have a feeling your interest in the piece is because of the chocolate… are you an ant? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Zanahary Thankyou for noticing :) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: The Lady in White

Hello! Let me know if there's anything I can do to get the ball rolling on this. I am happy to share offline sources with you as much as I can in lieu of Internet Archive's status. This means, if you want to do any spot checks, I can share the original offline sources with you, in whole or in part, in plain text, or some other way. Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas Hey, I'll pass for now, and when the Internet Archive comes back online I hope we can go through it together. I won't hold it up in the meantime. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the logs, it looks like it didn't work because you failed it. I reversed everything and I hope you can try passing it again to get the logs and the counters to work. Viriditas (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I reset it. Please try passing again with the GANReviewTool. I looked at the logs and didn't see any other errors when you tried before. Viriditas (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully that has worked. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Chocolate in savory cooking

On 27 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chocolate in savory cooking, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that chocolate is included as an ingredient in 18th-century Italian recipes for pappardelle, fried liver, black polenta, and lasagna sauce? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chocolate in savory cooking. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chocolate in savory cooking), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

1=Launchballer 00:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Justiniano Borgoño

Hello Rollinginhisgrave, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Justiniano Borgoño. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #16.

GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Too bitey and dismissive

So feel free to improve it, provided you don't make it so long that it won't be read. I don't think editors care that much about its tone, we all just got very tired of all the time spent responding to these things. Btw such changes don't require revisiting consensus 61.

If you feel a need to "personalize" the response, I don't see a problem with a brief reply in addition to the link. But ~95% of what needs to be said should be said in the response page. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus 61 took some selling on my part. Before it passed, shoot on sight was routine for those things. Now we give a full, consistent response that at least tries to be respectful. So there are degrees of dismissiveness and perhaps you can see how my perspective is different on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss Thanks, I didn't want to step on toes so acted adjacently. I understand editors are tired of hearing the same thing, I don't blame you for referring them to a pre-packaged response. Certainly better than shoot on sight. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Well you essentially violated established consensus, apparently knowingly so, so I don't know what you mean by step on toes. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss Unintentionally. Still coming to terms with the page and its processes, with less tact than may be desired. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for that, I was beginning to get worried. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus 61 took some selling on my part. Before it passed, shoot on sight was routine for those things. I misspoke in haste. Now I feel the need to correct the record. Shoot on sight was far from "routine", although it occurred for the most abusive posts as it does today. What was more common was editors lacking self-discipline and responding to the OP in a manner that was time-wasting, inconsistent, incomplete, unclear, and/or disrespectful. That was the main issue addressed by the response page.

The response page was created in April 2020 with the expectation that it would just "catch on" naturally. When it hadn't done so by May 2023, I proposed #61. It passed, and it's a better world now. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss Having spent some time thinking on this, I do like the idea of routing editors through a crash course on wiki policy on bias before they can comment on it, you pushing it was certainly for the better. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hijacking this thread, what source were you referring to here? URL? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss this was the edit I was referring to. I do find it amazing that in neither of the discussions for consensus 25 using archive links to bypass paywalls was mentioned. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL (policy). Apparently, the community cares less about that accessibility issue than you do. I was able to access that archived source at archive.org/Wayback Machine with only a little more difficulty than I expected, using only the WaPo URL. I guess the assumption is that any reader who cares that much about reading sources is likely to be aware of archive.org and have the competence to use it. Anyway we looked at #invoke (as I recall, some editor did a mass change that was promptly reverted) and the usability issues were just too much. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss I suppose, I wasn't planning on pushing for bringing it back. The #invoke history is interesting. I've been active on the page for about a week, do you have feedback for my approach I can take on? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd just remain sensitive to the fact that a lot of what you're doing is a departure from years of practice. I've been starting to get something akin to the feeling I had when the feminist movement was forced upon me whether I liked it or not. :)

You're better than we are. But there are more of us. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss Thanks for these comments, I can see my editing getting pushy at times and I kick myself. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:TechnoSquirrel69 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Over the last few months, I've been seeing the name Rollinginhisgrave pop up more and more around good article–related processes. I first met them a couple of months ago when they reviewed my nominee and I was struck both by the quality of their comments and the pace at which they came. As it turns out, they have done the same for over 60 other articles in just the past four months! They also have a couple of GAs to their name — History of chocolate and Chocolate in savory cooking — with even more sweet things in the oven (so to speak), as evidenced by their user page. Although they have only been active for a few months, I hope you will join me in recognizing the good work they have accomplished. This nomination was seconded by Arconning and Vacant0.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Rollinginhisgrave

Editor of the Week for the week beginning November 17, 2024

A valued user that pops up more and more around good article–related processes. The nominator first met them when they reviewed a nominee and was struck by the quality of their comments and the pace at which they came. As it turns out, Rolling had done the same for over 60 other articles in just the past four months! They also have a couple of GAs to their name — History of chocolate and Chocolate in savory cooking — with even more sweet things in the oven (so to speak), as evidenced by their user page. Although they have only been active for a few months, they deserve to be recognized for the good work they have accomplished.

Recognized for

quality comments

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou so much TechnoSquirrel69, Arconning and Vacant0! The misspelling in the blurb made me laugh, but it seems strangely appropriate... Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Though I must admit I don't see anything misspelled; am I missing something? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

​As it turns out, Rolloing Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Lol, I see it now! Fixed here and at the Hall of Fame. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou :) Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

. Sorry for the mistake...or...was it a mistake???? Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 06:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Buster7 no worries, thankyou very much for facilitating this (and for the new billboard signature). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of White chocolate

The article White chocolate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:White chocolate for comments about the article, and Talk:White chocolate/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Szmenderowiecki -- Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Reversing consensus 20

Re: [1]

If you give a man a fish, he will eat today, but teach a man to fish and he will eat forever.

I.e., you haven't done them any favors in the long term. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss I certainly don't disagree, but this falls pretty firmly into WP:NOTBURO: potentially legitimate concerns not being addressed because they were raised in the wrong venue. Letting it languish, not being addressed to motivate them to be proactive is pointy. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I could not disagree more strongly. Process and organization are not bureaucracy, and perhaps you would benefit from more experience with discussions that mix topics. Remember, if consensus 8 is canceled, it will link to that discussion. According to you, it will be a great idea for it to include a lot of discussion completely unrelated to the cancellation of consensus 8. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Mandruss I think my actions aligned exactly with what you are saying: I moved the discussion to a new thread to prevent this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

And back to my initial comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

And back to my second? Haha. Hope you're well. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Me too. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you...

		The Civility Barnstar
		I think you deserve it for your contributions to what might currently be the most complex talk page on Wikipedia. Reading your replies makes me feel good inside, for some weird reason. Cessaune [talk] 05:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Cessaune this is so kind, thankyou. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Rollinginhisgrave! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Helping new users better formulate their challenges, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Blond chocolate

It seems like you have quite some edits on chocolate, and I wonder, why have you removed blond chocolate from Types_of_chocolate article, on your edit on September 7th?

I wanted to respawn it to the article, but I want to discuss it with you before that.

I'd like to give you some arguments for Blonde Chocolate as a Type:

• Unique Flavor Profile: The Maillard reactions alter the flavor profile of white chocolate, giving it a distinct taste that sets it apart.
• Different Production Process: The specific heating and stirring process involved in creating blonde chocolate is different from the standard white chocolate production.
• Distinct Appearance: The golden color of blonde chocolate is noticeably different from the traditional white color of white chocolate.

Ruby chocolate is considered as a type, not a milk chocolate variant of ruby cocoa. It also satisfies all the above. So why not blond chocolate?

I would appreciate your answer. 141.226.144.100 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP, thanks for putting this together. A lot of it is irrelevant to Wikipedia, it doesn't really matter if we can argue the case that it is a "type" of chocolate distinct from white chocolate, it matters how reliable sources discuss that. The most reliable sources I have seen discussing blonde chocolate as a type frame it from the perspective of Valronha's lobbying efforts for governmental recognition as a distinct type. This distinction is not endorsed therein. Don't worry too much about how types of chocolate looks at the moment, I'm going to work on it once I get all the sub articles to good article status. I'll move this to the article talk page when I'm not on my phone later, but in the meantime you can respond here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rollinginhisgrave,

Thanks for your reply! I completely understand your point about reliable sources.

Honestly, I wasn't aware of the industry politics behind blonde chocolate (not from the US here). I initially looked for info on Wikipedia after a friend mentioned Maillard reactions creating its flavor. Since I couldn't find it, I added a short section based on this source. I also added a sentence about its short history.

Originally, I even put it under the white chocolate section because I wasn't sure of its classification.

I agree that regulatory recognition is important, but I also think the types list should reflect culinary characteristics. Ruby chocolate is another example, right?

I hope your reorganization of the chocolate articles will include the removed blonde chocolate information.

Flin00 (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Happened across a few articles that I saw you had a hand in and was fondly reminded of your courteousness and patience at Talk:Ludwell–Paradise House/GA1. Enjoy this tea as a sign of reverberating appreciation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rogue Chocolatier

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rogue Chocolatier you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

History of chocolate

Hi -- I saw your response to my comments at the FAC. I'd be happy to help at the article talk page, whenever you get time to work on it again. I think my first suggestion would be to sketch out the overall tree of articles that should ultimately exist in order to get a clearer picture of what belongs in this article. I suspect there's enough material in reliable sources for specialized articles such as history of chocolate manufacturing -- after all we do already have history of Cadbury which would be a child article of that. That would imply that history of chocolate would be in summary style, which is tricky if some of the subarticles haven't been written yet. Anyway, I have the article on my watchlist and look forward to seeing what happens to it. ~~ Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holiday and Merry Christmas!

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа! ~ Meri Kirihimete!

Hello, Rollinginhisgrave! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Yue🌙 21:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}