Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Modernista!/Notice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Archfailure (talk | contribs) at 19:11, 4 April 2008 (no evidence provided). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Modernista!/Notice

This seems unneeded and unsupported by policy. It appears that any page that links to this company's site will show the linking page. For example, click on this link: http://www.modernista.com/ or use the one I put at User:Lawrence_Cohen/work. What policy allows for this inclusion? I believe this also has implications under WP:NPOV, which no local editor has the power to supercede, and the Foundation is also bound to as well. This needs to be evaluated for it's merit by the wider community; if this is a Foundation action, it's authority is debatable as the Foundation has no authority over direct article content. My own thought is the template should be removed. Lawrence § t/e 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete What on earth is going on here when creating the page, AlisonW notes that Move notice from talkpage to its own page for ease of inclusion and for ease of protection measures should that prove necessary - protection? what? This is not normal process but I suggest this is crossposted to AN/I because this looks damn serious to me. --87.113.52.175 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left a note on WP:AN; this one needs a wide audience for a proper review, as the outcome--as in any cases--is dependent on the will of the local community. In any event, AlisonW would have no authority to use admin tools in anything she is involved in, as has been conveyed to her previously. Lawrence § t/e 18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — this has nothing to do with the article. Modernista appears to have a novel concept for a website, wherein they overlay a menu with their logo and a disclaimer over the site which links to them. In their words, this allows us to see them "through the eyes of the web". They clearly state the menu on the left is our homepage. Everything behind it is beyond our control, which in no sense would imply that, as the big red warning symbol says "Wikipedia serves as their homepage provider". The statement that this novel website concept uses Wikipedia "as a promotional mechanism in this manner for any third party" attacks the company in question, despite no demonstrated intention that this is the case. I don't see any legitimate purpose for this disclaimer. --Haemo (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Haemo sums it up well. Also, subpages don't work in mainspace, so this is technically an article. A company uses one of our articles as a webpage so we put up a disclaimer? That doesn't sound right. Mr.Z-man 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently they have stopped hotlinking to us, and now link to the last website the user visited. I think this notice no longer serves any purpose. -- lucasbfr talk 18:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of information The default modernista page is, in fact, their wikipedia page overlayed with their overlay. If you open up a blank page and then go to www.modernista.com, you will wind up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernista!, overlayed with their advert, contrary to the factual assertions of Lucasbfr, Haemo and the nominator. Archfailure (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have no control over outside websites, and this still doesn't give anyone authority to supercede WP:NPOV. AlisonW, Jimbo, Bastique, Sue Gardner--none of them are allowed to do anything counter to NPOV. Attempts to endanger NPOV can be reverted by anyone. Lawrence § t/e 19:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just clarifying that if I got the technical facts wrong, it doesn't matter as far as NPOV goes. If this is a legal matter for the WMF for protection of their trademark, then that's a job for Mike Godwin. Unless the WMF board, who we elected, says that NPOV is in force except for when it annoys the WMF, Article space is sacrosanct against intrusions like this. We have to eat our own dogfood. Lawrence § t/e 19:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not present an argument that the pastel box is a violation of NPOV (aside from your bald assertion, unsupported by fact.) Whose POV is being expressed as fact? If this is correctable by editing, why has such not been attempted? I mean, I know why - we all do. It's because your dear friend Greg thinks this would be fun for him to dramaz, and you're just playing along. Archfailure (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]