Talk:Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer)

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives: Talk:Overstock.com/Archive 1

Article probation

Restrictions...Editors are directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Do not remove this notice — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gradient lawsuit

In reporting the outcome of a lawsuit, fairness dictates that you be as even handed as possible. Reporting the home town paper's version of it's CEO's lawsuit needs to be balanced by the more skeptical reaction of a New York Times columnist of outstanding reputation.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information is sourced to Reuters. That it happens to be also sourced to the SLT is just to establish that it's widely reported. I think your quote introduced undue weight, what I added was factual, without commentary (which was quoted and which I could have included...) I'll be reverting it on that basis but feel free to add something back which is a balanced set of quotes, not just one negative. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News have probably published more words about the "Sith Lord" than any two papers in the world. I think it's insulting to call them a biased source; I did a quick search to be sure, and found an appropriately skeptical 2100 word article by Bob Mims May 6, 2006 that concludes with this line: "Adds [Gary] Weiss: 'It is a disgrace that regulators take these people seriously, and I believe that [it is] the funding and tactics of these people [that] should be investigated.'"

Most sources seem to think this was some kind of win for Overstock.com, even though the settlement is totally opaque. Here, for example, is the the well-respected WSJ law blog. They conclude that Gradient didn't want to face a jury. That could be, or it could have been settled for mere nuisance value (maybe $0). I say we just stick to the facts. Cool Hand Luke 19:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources feel it is a win for Overstock? The only analysis I see is from a distinguished columnist for the New York Times Nocera, whose deft analysis of the lawsuit has been removed from this article on a shoddy pretext. I have no idea what the "Sith Lord" has to do with any of this, or whether the Salt Lake Tribune is a good or bad publication. What matters is that the New York Times analysed this lawsuit settlement and found it to be a big nothing. Removing it skews the article and does a disservice to your readers. Nocera was executive editor of Fortune and was a Pulitzer finalist. If he doesn't meet your criteria for inclusion then there is something wrong with your criteria. I personally doubt that it doesn't meet your criteria.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a Fortune article. I think it is essential to have both sides of the story in reporting litigation.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to include the article, you would have to paraphrase what it says. Looking through, I see this article stated:

Gradient also said it regrets describing Overstock's accounting policies as being outside of generally accepted accounting procedures, or GAAP, which is traditionally a red flag for securities analysts. ... In turn, Overstock said it will now press ahead on its case against Copper River.

I have no problem noting if Overstock conceded something or Gradient held on to something, but this should presumably be something that has been noted prominently, that we can then add and source. If Nocera said that they did not admit to the underlying claims, I would think that could be added. Mackan79 (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted User:John Nevard's addition of an analysis quote by lawyers. What I added was a factual reporting of settlement, and of what Gradient admitted, as released in Reuters. People keep trying to add things that put this partial settlement in a negative light. That suffers from an undue weight problem. If you wish to have the article say more about this topic, you'll have to find quotes that present all sides. For example, if you include statements from Gradient, or from Copper River you'll need to also include statements from Overstock rebutting them. Best to just leave it all out, go with a purely factual presentation in this area and let the reader draw their own conclusions. I strongly suggest against a repeat insertion of such material without gaining consensus here on the the talk page first. Which does not at this time exist. I further note that this article is on probation so fiddling about will not be looked at kindly. ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~John Nevard undid my reversion without a word of explanation. That's unacceptable. Talk it through here and gain consensus for this change. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

That is incorrect, I acted hastily, and I apologise. In fact he took my advice and the material inserted the second time is not the same as the first, and it is indeed balanced. Thanks, and apologies for the confusion. I was fooled by the lack of the edit summary. I reverted myself back, so the article is as John's second edit again... ++Lar: t/c 00:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restating financials

Not sure if this is just a blip or if it warrants inclusion in the article, but it seems to have been covered several places. Last week Overstock restated its earnings from 2003 through the second quarter of 2008; SVP of Finance David Chidester cited problems with the implementation of their ERP system that caused mistakes in accounting for customer refunds and order cancellations. References would be: Kanaracus,Chris (Novemeber 2, 2008). "Overstock's ERP Woes Force It to Restate Results". IDG News Service. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (carried in NYT and Computerworld) and Sage, Alexandria (Oct 24, 2008). "Overstock posts smaller loss, to restate results". Reuters.; there was also a mention in AP but I don't have the full ref for that at the moment. Shell ^babelfish 05:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had just edited the revenue figures on October 7, 2008 to include the 2007 numbers. I used Yahoo finance as the reference. Since Yahoo Finance has adjusted their reported revenue numbers for Overstock from $760 million to $867 million, I would think we would least edit the numbers to match the reference. user_talk:paulfromatlanta 20:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a number of other news stories in national newspapers related to their previous spates of readjustment of previously reported earnings.John Nevard (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Redirect from Antisocialmedia Article?

Hi, I came to Wikipedia looking for information about "AntiSocialMedia" because it was mentioned in an article about Wikipedia, here [1]. Wondering who or what this organization is, I searched the wiki, and came upon a redirected article for Antisocialmedia. The redirect is for Overstock.com#AntiSocialMedia.net, but the section does not exist and there is nothing on the Overstock article that even talks about AntiSocialMedia. In other words, having searched for AntiSocialMedia, I am instead delivered to an article that tells me nothing about it.

My question is, is this redirect accomplishing anything useful? And if not, what can be done about it? Is it ok to add information about AntiSocialMedia to the Overstock article? Or should the redirect be removed and a separate article created?

I doubt I personally would have time to devote to editing such an article, because I don't even know about the controversy and I'm unlikely to in the near future, but I would like to prevent another user from having to repeat my futile search/redirect experience. Thanks,

Joren (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up nominating the redirect for deletion here. Joren (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection?

Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over this article based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland, so any change to the protection will be dependent on support from or appeal to the Committee. Regards, Skomorokh 19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is law journal article that mentions Overstock.com several times, in reference to its litigation. It doesn't seem central to the article such as to warrant placing in your references section, but editors can draw upon it if desired as a resource: http://www1.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawbusiness/issues/uploads/5-1/NYB103.pdf

Huge number of customer complaints on consumber affairs website

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/online/overstock.html

http://www.my3cents.com/search.cgi?criteria=overstock.com

Hundreds of customer complaints on multiple websites CAN'T just be a "fluke". It looks like they're a rip-off company, yet this company only mentions IPO lawsuits. Is someone at Overstock censoring this article???? Macshill (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]