Talk:eBay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Companies (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Apps (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Open Source Alternative[edit]

anyone know of, or what open source model may break Ebay's monopoly ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.3.213 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Monopoly on what? Even if eBay has a "monopoly", it's not because of their architecture; it's because of their real strong point, marketing. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

searching for things on ebay[edit]

why is there no info on ebay search tools, or do we just use google to search for things on ebay these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.0.231 (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


Why No Mention of e-Bay.com[edit]

eBay was originally one of many companies with the a x-bay.com address. We had an account with e-bay.com we were told the new address and all e-bay.net accounts will be ebay.com and that you could keep your old account name or change it. We changed ours as the name we had chosen was not something we expected to keep for decades to come and was not quite PG Rated. I am seriously wondering why this is not mentioned in the article as surely it was not a subject that was taken lightly, the -bay.com was a place of commerce, porn, and other very popular websites. 2602:306:CF5B:6C80:7DFF:2257:B79E:7C63 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Still Doc Ock

Point us to some reliable sources discussing the phenomenon you describe, and perhaps it can be included in the article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

I propose merging Criticism of eBay with Ebay to create a more NPOV article. if the article becomes to long we can use topics and content to make subarticles. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on EBay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Logo styles--current only vs. both vs. none--mentioned in lead as in other articles[edit]

I've again reverted this addition from the lead, since the contributing editor has declined to do it, or discuss. My problems with this addition twofold;

  • time relative expressions are to be avoided. Using the expression "currently" means nothing to the reader because they have no idea when it was written. It also may be read as speculation that there may be future change, again at some unspecified point in time. Essentially the lead loses nothing by removing this word entirely.
  • It is not clear why an old stylisation is of such significance that it needs to be mentioned in the lead sentence. Is it of any real importance? Does it radically affect the reader's understanding of what ebay is presently? I don't think so.

--Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Again, I invite the IP editor concerned to discuss this rather than insisting on reverting without any attempt to reach a consensus. --Escape Orbit --(Talk) 20:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • These both seem like great points. The logo change doesn't seem so significant as to need to be in the lead. As far as I know this styling is not a major part of the brand. Is there a good reason to include it? Prodego talk 05:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree it seems inappropriate for the lead. Since none of the revert-happy IPs have offered up any discussion here may I suggest semi-protecting the page as well? Qzd (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    @Qzd: I fully protected the page pending the outcome of this dispute, any more edit-warring after that can probably be handled with blocks. I think we need more than 15 minutes to allow them time to post here, however. Prodego talk 05:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Escape Orbit. The old stylisation of the logo is unimportant, and I fail to see the importance in adding it to the lead sentence.2602:304:CDC0:D470:350D:DF14:1321:6BCB (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The IP-only user whose address is currently 174.23.172.2 (talk) says the following:
  • Fine. I'm here. Why is it so "inappropriate" (according to you guys)? It explains that there's the difference between text-only "eBay" and the actual logo that's more like "ebay," but also the distinction between that same lame text-only "eBay" and how it used to be styled, which was "ebaY" until late 2012. I've seen other articles that refer to the stylization in the lead, but I can't remember which ones. Why should it be so... "Hahhh, terrible, HAHH!" just to have that here too? Is it really THAT "terrible" to have those few additional words there? What is the BIG FREAKIN' DEAL?
  • How about Kesha? That mentions a former style in the lead too. If that's okay to have there, then why supposedly "not" (according to you) here?
FYI you can sign your comments automatically by placing ~~~~ at the end of the comment. I'm out for now, but I look forward to the responses from the other users when I return. Thanks everyone for coming and discussing here, should make things much easier. Prodego talk 11:08 pm, Today (UTC−8)
174.23.172.2 (talk) says:
I already KNOW how to sign. That is HOW I did that up there already (except that I just typed "~~~" instead of "~~~~" so that the cluttery date junk wouldn't come into my opening there)!
Kesha's name was written differently in text, but "ebaY" only refers to a logo stylization. That seems beyond the scope of the WP:LEADSENTENCE. AFAIK the company has always been "eBay" or "eBay Inc" in writing. Qzd (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference? Ebay's name was always "eBay," which is written differently in text than its logo shows too! Kesha's "logo" was "Ke$ha." What's so "terrible" about having the distinctions for ebay? Is your lead really that "sacred"? What about the band "fun."? Why don't we go and remove all the stylization notes from the leads of all of those that have them, especially if they're just former?

And what about X Clan? And why don't THESE two articles need absolute time references either? Should I go look for some more? There are several more examples I can certainly use if these "aren't good enough" for you for some ridiculous reason!

Again, those are stylizations to the name in writing, not only the logo design. WP:REALTIME and WP:LEADSENTENCE are established guidelines, so it's not very productive to argue against them by cherry-picking other articles. The question is: is it appropriate for this article? Qzd (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
How do you even know that for sure? Where's your source? And even if so, then what? Minor difference. "Big deal." What's so "hellaciously wrong" with showing the differentiations between them here at the lead of this article too, if it doesn't really add more length than those other mentions do? Why must it be so damned "sacred" to you? 174.23.172.2 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Because it's unimportant clutter. The lead sentence is all about hitting the reader with the key facts about the article subject. An obsolete stylisation of their logo is not one of them. I've inviting you a number of times to explain why it is so significant, but you seem determined to pick arguments instead. Reverting repeatedly, accusing others of sockpuppeting and vandalism, SHOUTING and demanding "why not!" is not how you establish consensus. As for other articles; just because they may (or may not) fail to follow the manual of style is no reason for this article to do likewise. So please, calm down, and give us a reason why it should. A number of people have already explained "why not", now you tell us why. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. eBay has always been known as eBay, Ebay, or EBay, regardless of the exact logo style. Unlike Ke$ha, the differences between them are simply capitalization, so there is no chance of confusion. eBay has not prominently featured a specifically capitalization, it is not essential to their brand. Therefore, I don't think it belongs in the lead, though I do think we should have an image of the old logo somewhere in the article (though perhaps not call out the specifically capitalization explicitly).
Also, since I have become involved here, I will not unprotect the page, I'll leave that to another admin when they believe consensus has developed. Prodego talk 06:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no problem with this being discussed within the article. It simply is not anything like important enough to feature so prominently in the lead. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Uh, I actually *DID* give an explanation, but you chose to ignore it. And I said that *you* were being a vandal just like you said that I was being one. Just because you don't like my reasoning doesn't mean I was being a vandal. Yes, it is actually specific to their brand. Would they change their logo for nothing? Why is it any "worse" for ebay's stylization, former or not, to be mentioned in the lead than for any other article where stylization is mentioned in the lead for any other reason? 75.162.217.153 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
At this point I think the consensus is clearly against adding this material to the lead. Wikipedia works on consensus, and we've had several editors weigh in. Prodego talk 02:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The IP refuses to work collaboratively in the community. I don't know anymore. It's up to the admins to deal with this combative behavior. SlightSmile 04:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If, by "refuses to work collaboratively," this combative user really means "refuses to be shut completely out" because he insists on reverting past the middle ground of having only the current stylization mentioned in the lead, which is actually what he and at least two others of you had already been reverting to, instead of just reverting to that again, then yeah, I refuse, of course!

But if, on the other hand, this combative user actually means what he says, then that's a bold-faced lie! I am here talking this out, am I not? I am proposing compromises that don't completely go in one direction or the other, am I not? This is collaboration! So if, amongst all the earlier reversions, you guys were happy to only revert to the way that it was before with the current stylization still mentioned in the lead but not the former one, then why are you so adamant to dig deeper now and eliminate both? What's making you now feel like you MUST go farther than the 2 points that you, including escape orbit, were already happy with before? --Still mobile for now, 2600:100E:B123:2252:1AE6:9744:E0EF:420 (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC).

Here is what I see.
  • 1 Mark Arsten unprotects the page
  • 2 Slightsmile selects what they believe is a logical consensus version, based on this discussion.
  • 3 you restore the material that was explicitly decided against above.
  • 4 I revert to Slightsmile's version.
  • 5 you make some very related, undiscussed changes to the page. Personally, I agree with these, but it is poorly advised to make a change to what is known to be a contentious section without discussion. Especially in light of all the issues we discussed above.
  • 6 Slightsmile reverts you. This is the one revert of the bold, revert, discuss cycle.
  • 7 you revert Slightsmile. At this point you are edit-warring, and as a long-term editor you should know this. This is the last time I am going to warn you about this. From now on, if you revert any reversion of your edits I will block you.
  • 8 at this point Slightsmile reverts you. This is probably not a good idea, as it could possibly be seen as edit-warring. In light of the previous changes you've made it is understandable that he considered it reverting to a consensus version.
  • 9 You continue edit-warring, and Slightsmile wisely discontinues.
"Refuses to work collaboratively" is quite an apt discription of your conduct. Please, propose changes, provide input on the talk page, and follow WP:BRD. But you need to stop edit-warring over unilateral changes, regardless of if you consider them to be compromises.
This my last warning. If an editor reverts you, do not revert them. Start a discussion on the talk page, and make no reverts, full or partial, until you come to a consensus. In light of the previous history here, I will interpret any violation of WP:1RR as edit-warring, and will block for it..
As for the content of your change (5) – I agree with it, I think it is best to avoid the word "current," and calling out the common name of eBay, Inc. seems reasonable. Any other editors have opinions on it?

Prodego talk 07:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


Back as 75.162.217.153 (talk) now, I add the following:

"Refuses to work collaboratively" is actually what you guys are doing, because to you it must be all about what YOU guys want and nothing of what I want, and instead I should just be treated as second-class merely because I'm IP-only. LOL, "start a discussion on the talk page"? So what do you call ^^^ THIS ^^^ then?

Um, I'm talking about reversions that came before that, prodigo. The reversions that came before that are what escape orbit and his little buddy-buddies were already happy with going back to (where "[stylized as 'ebay']" remained) after I added mention of the former style to that part of the lead. So if they were happy with that, then why are you and your buddy-pals stooping to this new low of taking those both out? Is it just a ploy to get me to be happy with just having the article read the same old way as it did with the current style mentioned in the lead but not the new one (in other words, creating some new, worse but fake "bad news" so that the previous lesser, but real, bad news will just seem more acceptable to the receiver)?

And why even ask whether or not this "current" from the infobox should stay or not, since your little preffy-friend escape orbit already took that out as part of being consistent with his little complaint that I had added "currently" to the first mention of style? If you'd like to take him more seriously because he has a user name and he's... well... him, then why did that ever get removed in the first place, and then why was it reverted when you guys knew that I was taking it back out after that?

I get why the wiki community might favor editions from a "high-and-mighty admin," but why does it seem like most of it also bows down to non-admin named editors over IPers too, huh?

And why is it that you consider my reversions as "edit-warring" but you guys' are somehow "not" even though you're just putting the stuff back too? Have you forgotten that one of the rules regarding edit-warring includes "even if you believe you are right"? Well you guys think you are "right" and you keep reverting too. How are you guys supposedly "not" edit-warring too, huh?

You still haven't supplied any reason why it is so important that this be in the lead. And yet you continue to cast allegations. For someone who gets so offended at being addressed as a new users, you don't appear to understand much about how Wikipedia is compiled. If you can't accept consensus and take alteration of your edits as personal insults, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said that changing my edits was akin to an insult, escape, but just by your saying that you deserve to feel that way about your own.

What you guys are calling "consensus" is actually not, unless you think "let us 3 or 4 guys leave one guy out" rightfully amounts to "consensus." But if you do, then you are actually the fool. I did not consent.

I already did answer your question, but you've chosen to be too ignorant to pay attention to it. Yet you have still not yet managed to answer mine about why, even though you were satisfied before with reverting to "(stylized as 'ebay')" without the former, you aren't even satisfied with that now and want to even use your half-smile buddy to remove even that now.

And why is it that you guys think you have to act like "just because you think something is unimportant then it actively must NOT be used? Since when did passive content require active prohibition?

And you haven't even answered why, even though you were the one who took off "current" from the infobox when you took "currently" from the style mention, one of you went and put "current" back ON the infobox for no good reason, or why when I took it back off, you had one of your little cohort buddies stick that back on even after you already wanted it off! It's like you guys can't make up your mind with that! What the hell is up with you guys? 2600:100E:B12A:E8CD:C519:4540:A829:37CD (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Because "us guys" are not, despite your repeated accusations, working as some kind of team, just to annoy you. We are individual editors working to improve Wikipedia and create and follow consensus. We may not agree precisely on everything, but we work together. Again, if you don't get this then editing Wikipedia is not for you.
The justification you've given for your addition hasn't swayed anyone. Sorry. The fact you've focussed on "it should go in because I want it in, and everyone else is colluding to stop it" hasn't helped. The combative tone you've taken from the start really hasn't helped you. Many of your comments are in breach of 'assume good faith' guideline and civility policy. You need to calm down.
In reply to your question; if something is unimportant it shouldn't be in the lead because it gets in the way of the things that are important. The reader does not want to have to wade through trivia to obtain the key facts. This is particularly important in the lead because many presentations of the article (such as in web search results or mobile applications) initially only show the first sentence of the article. We shouldn't waste that abbreviated display with detail that is, frankly, of very little interest to most people. Yes, what counts as of interest can be a matter of opinion and taste, but in this case most in this discussion agree that this is not.
Unfortunately you are now way over the line in regards to your edit warring. You have already been warned in regards to this, so please do not revert this article again. Please take this as friendly advice. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
escape orbit (yeah, I did that on purpose), It looks like I am going to have to be uncivil to you because you are not getting my point otherwise. Simply put, you are a moron. Yes, you were being uncivil to me by assuming that I said "because I want it in." I never said that. That's how morons think, and hence this description for you. There's a BIG difference between that stupid thing you just falsely put on my keyboard and this quote: "It explains that there's the difference between text-only 'eBay' and the actual logo that's more like 'ebay', but also the distinction between that same lame text-only 'eBay' and how it used to be styled, which was ' 'ebaY' until late 2012."
Your tone has been at least as combative as you think mine has, so you are the one who needs to calm down. Wikipedia editing actually isn't for you.
You obviously don't know quite how 3RR works. If someone reverts more than 3 times in the same day's worth of time, then they have broken 3RR. Not until then.
You guys may not be on the same exact team, but you claim "consensus" despite that I'm not part of that as one of the editors in the dispute. You still have not answered my question of why you guys in that supposed "consensus" have gone deeper than you were already satisfied with before. Perhaps I should ask the one who is doing it most recently, fakesmile. In fact, even he or she is edit-warring now. Just because s/he's part of your consensus doesn't mean s/he's not edit-warring. So there's that issue too.
You, escape orbit, have falsely assumed bad faith onto me. Remember the times you falsely called me a "vandal"? What do you call that assumption, huh?
And even though semi-smile girl has finally now REremoved "current" from the infobox like you did before, orbit, you still have never answered me on why it got back there in the first place. What about that?
Define "lead" in this context. How far does it go? Is it just the first paragraph?
Okay, @Slightsmile: when you first started your reversion junk here, even you would only revert to the point of where escape orbit left the "(stylized as 'ebay')" in place without the old version. Go back up and look at his bullets here and then look at your reversions. All of you who were doing those early reversions in your little group that you called "consensus" were originally only reverting to the point of leaving the mention of the current style in the lead, according to the earlier discussion here. Originally you guys were only saying that mentioning the former style in the lead was "too much" for you, so you didn't erase them both. Why are you guys erasing them both now, even though the original concern was only against the old one?
75.162.211.81 (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked you for 48 hours for the personal attacks and battleground behavior in the comment above. Keep in mind that this applies not only to edits from this single IP address. I've left the full notice on User talk:75.162.211.81. Prodego talk 01:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion on 2014 security breach edit to correct inaccuracies[edit]

Hello.

My name is Jennifer Lowe, and I work at eBay as a Web Content Specialist.

I’m hoping to be of some value in addressing information in the eBay Wikipedia page that may be either outdated or inaccurate.

For example, the paragraph about our 2014 security breach appears to confuse two separate events. In February 2014, the Syrian Electronic Army replaced the homepages for a very limited number of people visiting certain eBay and PayPal pages in the UK, France and India. The issue was quickly detected and resolved, and no customer accounts were affected. Source: [1]

The Syrian Electronic Army attack is separate from the security breach that required a password reset. As currently depicted in the Wikipedia entry, the two events appear to have been merged.

As noted in the existing sources for this paragraph, the security breach in May 2014 was a result of hackers compromising a small number of employee log-in credentials. The hackers did not gain access to financial information and users were forced to reset their passwords as a precautionary measure. Source: [2] and [3]

Based on this, how does this community feel about something like the following?: “In early February 2014, the Syrian Electronic Army replaced the eBay and PayPal homepages for a limited number of people in the UK, France and India. The issue was quickly detected and resolved, and no customer accounts were affected. In a separate event, on May 21, 2014, the company revealed that the consumer database of usernames, passwords, phone numbers, and physical addresses had been breached by hackers who compromised a small number of employee log-in credentials. eBay users were advised to change their passwords; in order to expedite this a "change password" feature was added to profiles of users who had not yet done so. The eBay stock value fell in response to the disclosure.”

Thanks for your consideration. I look forward to joining the conversation. Jennifer Lowe

JenniferKL (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2016[edit]

I would like to add a line about eBay selling it's craigslist stake and the reference http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-19/ebay-sells-back-28-4-stake-in-craigslist-ending-litigation.

Natecarrier (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Varun  12:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016[edit]

Could somebody add "(as AuctionWeb)" next to the Start date and age template, so that it says "{Start date and age|1995|9|3} (as AuctionWeb)" to show its original founding name?


71.163.81.242 (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 21:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)