Talk:Urban Decay (cosmetics)

message: Reads like and advertisement.
futurebird 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to whoever added the tag!futurebird 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone problems

message: Can anyone find any sources on what prompted a cosmetics company to name their brand after Urban decay which is a serious issue in many cities? What's next? A Suburban sprawl clothing line? I don't just want to inset my own "op-ed" but, I think a serious treatment of this topic as a article should explore that idea. Any thoughts?futurebird 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize I'm replying to a very old talk topic, but this does touch upon an important point.  If anyone has sourced information as to why they founder(s) chose that name, it would be a valuable addition.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 23:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the name?

message: -why do you suppose the titles of the products have extreme names that mostly youth from today's generation understand?--Maria Abeyta90 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "URBAN DECAY COSMETICS"? 

message: I removed the product discussion section. If you want to learn about specific products, the corporate website will give you all the necessary information. Otherwise, link it.
--99.231.196.195 (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Products can and should be talked about. They should not be promoted in any way, but the reason the company is successful is because of its products and info about them should be included. Short blurbs about the products is absolutely fine. Advertising them is not. However, in this case, I am going to keep your removals of that information. While it did talk about the products (which, again, is fine) it did so in a promotional manner and it would be really difficult to remove good info from bad. --132 03:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Advert

message: The Patricia Holmes link in the first paragraph goes to a page that has nothing to do with this article (other than the coincidence of names).  Should it be removed? Hcbowman (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be deleted.  Done.  Gantiganti (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Patricia Holmes

message: Holmes v. Lerner, 74 Cal. App. 4th 442 (1999) should probably be mentioned. The case is common to law textbooks now, and the facts are rather interesting. I'd edit the page, but I'm not good at that sort of thing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.222.129 (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Holmes v. Lerner

message: Within the last couple paragraphs in the History section, there are run on sentences that make the section drag, almost. On top of that, it seems as if this section, towards the end, mainly focuses on animal cruelty. Maybe try not to focus on that topic as much as you should of the Urban Decay history. I'd edit the page as well, but I'm not good at that sort of thing. Izzyk12 (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar and Animal Cruelty

message: No citations, impartial sounding sentences. Can someone clean this up?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladybunnerkins (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Stance on animal testing

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Equint3/sandbox
I will be editing the grammar/punctuation. Equint3 (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit