User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43

May 2010

Question regarding trade name use and rights

Resolved: Fixed at article; issue raised on article talk page.

SMcCandlish, Greetings, I have a question for you about content in the Wikipedia with regards to a Trade Name I hold and a person's use. To remind you, you and I exchanged in conversation regarding my Flashflight product, Wiki listing.

I (Playhard Inc) own the trademark on the term "Ultimate Disc" as it pertains to a plastic flying disc. A sporting goods item. At the bottom of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_disc, there is a content section called "External links". In this section, the bottom link; "Ultimate Disc Info - Informational organization comparing flying discs for ultimate.", links to a web site that is not only abusing my Trade Name, but using a triangulated linking of 4 web sites to point to their online store that only sells 1 type of flying disc. You can follow the Ace links and the "Frisbee" infringement web site too from the link in this category.

My legal is sending a cease and desist where it pertains to the use of our Trade Name. I would ask you to consider how they are a value to the category if they are really only a sales site selling one disc, and using the terms Frisbee and Ultimate Disc to gain SEO for their store sales.

Secondly, the reason I found them is I was looking at how they and Whamo are linked to the category "Flying Disc", Why couldn't Flashflight.com be linked into this section if other manufacturers and resellers are?

Thanks for the time and consideration. Let me know your thoughts and if I have any Wikipedia credit with my thoughts!

Cheers,

Jeff Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playhard (talkcontribs) 15:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. The trademark-abusive link in question should be removed from the article, as it is a spammy commercial link, and not something neutrally informative that would be of interest to our readers for encyclopedic purposes. It violates Wikipedia policies at WP:EL and WP:SPAM. A link to your company's website would too. I will removed that link from the article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 17:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dog breed capitalization - greyhound Greyhound etc

Resolved: Wrong venue (this is a policy matter, not a user behavior issue); dispute moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Dispute: Life form capitalization run rampant

Please read the comments I made on this on the Greyhound discussion page in January 2010. If you change the capitalisation of the word you change the meaning of the word. You may feel entitled to dictate lower case thanks to a house style guide, but that does not correspond to the historical reality - see for instance the breed standards and most source literature. Generally speaking, scientific literature will use lower case when naming breeds, that is however an inept reversal of the convention that first gave Science the name of a breed; a greyhound and a Greyhound are not necessarily the same thing.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to create some weird exception to basic grammar rules, take it up at WT:MOS and gain consensus for it there; griping at me about it isn't going to solve anything. I didn't create the MOS, I just enforce it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 17:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
PS: I don't mean to be insulting, but I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about, if you insist on capitalizing random non-proper nouns, like "science" as you just did above. I have no further interest in discussing this with you as a personal matter on my talk page. I've taken this to the Manual of Style as a general dispute, and you can see if you can gain any kind of consensus for the violence you are doing to the language. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 17:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
There is little point in blaming me or insulting me for the fact that the authority on naming and describing breeds (Kennel Clubs) do so with capitals. I didn't create "the exception".
Are you really going to remove the capitals from all breed names on all Wiki pages? How amusing; how bizaar! If you really believe I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, then read the breed standards. Read the Wiki page on the Greyhound, and you might learn the distinction between greyhound and Greyhound - they are not equivalents--Richard Hawkins (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, insult is not my intent. But I cannot pretend there isn't something deeply, deeply problematic about someone who can't properly capitalize words like "science" and "kennel club", or spell words like "bizarre", insisting that their capitalization of words like "greyhound" is somehow correct. Such a person is very clearly is no position whatsoever to be making grammatical and spelling pronouncements. This isn't a "grammar flame" - I don't really care if you spell correctly in articles, since someone will fix it if you don't, and not being a great speller doesn't make you a bad person or a big dummy. But entering a grammar debate on your part is probably a rather poorly-conceived idea. I don't have any beef with the fact that some (not all) specialist dog and bird publications like to capitalize breed & common names (meanwhile no one else does, in any other context). [[WP:NOT|WP is not a specialist dog or bird publication nor a kennel club. I never said you came up with "the exception". The fact of the matter is that WP:MOS and WP more generally do not recognize any such "exception" at all, and yet you are insisting on one and editwarring with me over the matter. In closing, I reiterate that there is zero point in us continuing a personal, one-on-one discussion about this. It's a policy matter, and has been taken up at WT:MOS where the discussion (one way or another) may have some practical end result. I read the greyhound page in great detail in the course of editing it, and there is no such distinction drawn there. It is true that "greyhound" can be used more generally, in certain context, but that doesn't make it a different word, much less call for capitalization. In the few circumstances in that or any other article where there could be confusion, simply say "the greyhound class of breeds" or something to that effect, verus "the greyhound breed", and there's no longer any ambiguity. PS: Given enough time, yes, I would certainly remove all capitalization from all dog breed articles (except where part of the name is a proper name, e.g. blue Lacy, Doberman pinscher), just like I would, given enough time, fix every instance of "irregardless". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are verbose, somewhat suspect in a person who implied that I was geeky. You are also sanctimonious, in a hostile and unhelpful wayway. A pity I cannot persuade you that there is a reason to Kennel Clubs naming the breeds they create in capitals.
A greyhound is a type of dog, a Greyhound is a breed. That distinction is obviously wasted on you, but it might be of value to the general reader of Wiki pages.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Being a geeky person (I am, myself) by nature is not the same as enforcing a geeky, highly specialist use of language on probably the single most generalist audience in the entire world. So don't misconstrue, please. Most people whose writing is criticized by someone else feel that the critic is being sanctimonious; oh well, it comes with the territory. Even if I were genuinely being sanctimonious, that would not have any effect on the validity of my argument (cf. the ad hominem fallacy - character flaws of the presenter of an position have nothing to do with the strength of that position, and implying that they do is faulty logic and bad rhetoric). Again, "kennel club" is not a proper name and is not capitalized (c.f. "pool league", "neighborhood association", "social club", etc.). "American Kennel Club" is a proper name and is capitalized. You don't need to convince me that kennel clubs have a reason for capitalizing breed names; I already knew that. To repeat: Wikipedia is not a kennel club or a dog specialty publication; it is a general encyclopedia, and as such it uses general, everyday English, not dog specialist conventions (to the extent that they are conventions at all, which is limited). The supposed problem of not capitalizing breed names is easily avoided by simply writing clearly, which is what we're supposed to be doing here in the first place. A greyhound is both a breed and type of breed, depending upon how you write the sentence. More on this at WT:MOS. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You were the one who started the ad hominem argument, not me. For someone who did not want to appear to waste time on this, you are doing exactly that. National Kennel Clubs like to capitalise their own names, as they do with their breed names. If you change that, you are not reflecting the verifiable reality. Yes, it has been a modern trend (since the 1970's?) to represent proper nouns in lower case; it is definitely not a grammatical rule. Get rid of your blinkers, inform your readers of the reality, not your prejudice--Richard Hawkins (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC).

Template:Double space

Resolved: Templates created as requested.

I believe you created the Template:Double space and Template:Space double templates to separate quotation marks from each other in templates...is there any way you can make this for apostrophes (both beginning- and end-of-template)? The main reason is for citation templates on the Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains article. A further discussion about this can be found on my talk page at User talk:Untitledmind72#Template:Double space. Just reply if you don't understand what I mean. Thanks! —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 21:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. The templates you want are {{-'}} and {{'-}}, for left and right side spacing, respectively. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 23:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow...thanks so much! —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 02:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No prollem. I should have thought to create those the first time around, when I did {{"-}} and {{-"}} and so on. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 05:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Midway Games

Resolved: Wrong venue; page split proposals should be discussed at the relevant page, not at the user talk page of the proposer.

You proposed a split in January, I really hope you don't split them because the category itself is small and splitting it, would be depriving the smaller category. The smaller category may even be deleted, which I oppose. Maybe you could remove the tag instead. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving this discussion to Category talk:Midway Games, where it belongs. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 00:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)