Talk:Tom's of Maine/Archives/2012

Free of artificial sweeteners

This probably qualifies as original research, so I'm adding it to the discussion page. I had a hard time with standard toothpastes, because I would get a sour stomach for a while after brushing, despite how well I rinsed. I mentioned it to my dental hygienist and she suggested this company's toothpaste. I tried it and have not experienced the sour stomach since. I extended this discovery to the tooth polish used during my cleanings at the dentist, and now ask for straight pumice tooth polish, with no sweetener and have seen the same improvement. --Sean 16:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tom's of Maine logo.png

Image:Tom's of Maine logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.

BetacommandBot 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

in Psychology

Hey,

I have reinstated my section on critical psych after it was removed yesterday as I can see no reason for its removal given that it is relevant, referenced and well linked. If someone can come up with a wiki code guideline or similar demonstrating why it should be removed please add it here and I will happily leave it off, if not...

I don't particularly see how it's relevant. You can do a lot of critical analyses of lots of commercial products, but when it comes down to it this is an article about a small toothpaste company and its products. My biggest problem with it is that it assumes too high of a level of knowledge on the part of the reader - it's speaking as though we all know what on Earth it's talking about, and while such high-level language is appropriate for pages on complex scientific, philosophical, or mathematical concepts, this is just about a personal hygiene company. As far as I'm concerned this is just an interesting piece of trivia if you're into this kind of thing already - most people are going to read this and not know what it's talking about and not see any relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.179.65.133 (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I can see your point in that it is a bit of a departure, but it is relevant within its field which is as relevant as any other reason to examine this page. Surely we are not to judge why people may be interested in this article? Further, I would disagree that it is trivia (not that there is anything wrong with that imo). You are right that most people looking at this page will not be interested in the topic but some will, and I do believe that it is well enough referenced that people who are interested will be able to learn more quite easily. Finally, while I appreciate that it is not relevant to whether the section should stay or not, I am removing the 'unverified claims' tag as the section includes a reference to the original article and hence is demonstrably not original or unverified. Kiwifruitrulz (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

delusional section removed

Author of this tangential rubbish must get out of the ivory and intercourse with the real world.

What relevance do your personal philosophical musings have to do with a personal hygiene products company????

This gives wikipedia a bad name. The encyclopedia needs to have professional articles, not experimential tangential commentary.

Lastly, where are the citations of independent references that give legitimacy to this silly section. Dogru144 (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)