Talk:Toms Shoes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect[edit]

Or this could be redirected to TOMS ShoesCathardic (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the Family[edit]

I modified the bottom of the article (section on Focus on the Family) as the sources being referenced are no longer valid, making the statements unverifiable. Source 39 is dead and source 40 uses quotes only available from source 39. I have not yet removed the sources as I wanted to make it easy to see why the edit was made. Further more it may make more sense to adjust any information specifically about Blake to the Blake Mycoskie Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johns17ba (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is not unverifiable because its web link no longer works. For instance, books don't need to have a link to a free web version of the book for the information cited to be verifiable. That would make all libraries (except for their computers) obsolete. Please read through WP:V for a better understanding of verifying claims in articles. OlYeller21Talktome 13:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying and would agree, but don't believe your explanation applies here. In the case of a book, even if you don't link to a free version of it, you know the source exists. In this case, the source doesn't exist (online, offline, in no form). It would be as if someone destroyed every copy of a book - how could you claim that as a verifiable source if there is no way for anyone to ever look at it? Because of this, you also cannot verify claims made in many of the other sources that used this work as their source. How do you verify what these locations used is accurate if the source they referenced for direct quotations is no longer available. Even in cases of ancient history we trust the sources we have but many have an understanding that "history is written by those who win". Still, we don't rely on works form history that don't exist for our history.

Also, I re-read the sections you mentioned related to citing sources and found nothing that would imply my edit was incorrect. In fact, I believe it further supports it as the statements revolve around an individual person -

Taken from that link you posted: "Content related to living people or medicine should be sourced especially carefully."

Based on these statements (that article makes note of this multiple times) from the guidelines, it seems even harder to trust sources that are 1) no longer in existence and 2) Third-party/secondary sources that reference sources not in existence.

Finally, the note is about Blake Mycoskie and not TOMS SHOES. If this content did live anywhere, why would it live on this page and not the Blake Mycoskie Wiki Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johns17ba (talk • contribs) 17:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I didn't read this entire response. It's quite long.
WP:V states that information must be verifiable not verified. You cited a section about information on living people being verified and it is, he spoke at the event, was criticized, and apologized. All three of those claims are backed up by the sources presented. Did you read any of them? You did see that I replaced the dead link with a new reference from an independent and reliable source, right?
Personally, I find this case interesting. You're a WP:SPA with less than 10 edits whose only edits are to this page to whitewash this section. Your ignorance of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is to be expected but you're pushing this in the fact of 4 references, no dead links, and policy that you yourself cited. What's your goal here? OlYeller21Talktome 18:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To facilitate a more productive discussion, please point out the exact claims that you feel are not backed up by reliable sources. I'll rebut each of them so that this can be a learning experience. OlYeller21Talktome 18:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prove to me that Blake Mycoskie apologized. If you can do that without referencing a source that makes the claim by referencing a source that no longer exists, I would be satisfied. As it stands, it looks like for all we know the articles from the media used as sources have misinformation. I apologize if I'm not quite up to snuff on wiki editing. As you pointed out I'm relatively new to the game.
Your own quotation from WP:V proves my point. The information has to be verifiable (defined as capable of being verified), which the lines in the content are not. It is true he spoke at the event, but there is no actual verifiable proof that he issued an apology as the document that was linked to by so many is no longer in existence. - how do you verify that what they stated is accurate?
Ultimately I'm disappointed by this process. It's clear to me that this project is ultimately governed by a group of editors that have final say about how something is composed and whether it's factual or not. That being said, it's my fault for not understanding how this site is setup and how it goes about achieving it's goal. If you don't even bother to read my full posts then there isn't much reason to continue the discussion. I will not edit the post anymore and likely will not work on helping wikipedia anymore either. Johns17ba (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Group of editors? I'm the only one here.
Prove that he apologized? This article from the Washington Post, a reliable source, outlines his apology. Are you saying there's some sort of conspiracy or something? By your logic, because there isn't a recording of Marcus Junius Brutus killing Julius Caesar to view, it's not veriable or verified, regardless of the several secondary sources that described the scenario.
I was and still am willing to discuss this with you but I think you're being unreasonable. You keep saying there's no reference to back up the information given but there are four. I assert that all claims made in that paragraph are not only verifiable but verified.
Ultimately, I think you may be concerned with "truth" instead of what's "verifiable". If you believe that the references aren't giving the truth, point out what claim and which reference so your concerns can be addressed. OlYeller21Talktome 20:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Mycoskie[edit]

Added a wikipedia reference link to Blake Mycoskie's Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johns17ba (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to mention ever edit you've made on the talk page of the article. If someone reverts your edit because they don't agree with it, that would be the time to discuss your edit. If you wish to explain your edit before any controversy begins, doing so in the edit summary would be a good first step. OlYeller21Talktome 13:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the Mycoskie article is in pretty bad shape. If it were to be deleted (I don't think it will be), we need to remove the redlink from the lede of the article (it can be in other areas) until an article exists. Again, this is only an issue if the article is deleted or redirected to this page again. OlYeller21Talktome 13:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History merge[edit]

The TOMS Shoes page was the original location of the article. It was moved to this page "Toms Shoes" but the talk page was not moved, most likely due to the fact that a talk page already existed here for the redirect that previously existed. I have placed the histmerge template on this talk page so that we may bring over the previously used talk page and all of its archives. It should be a clean move besides one comment made in 2010. I believe that's the only edit made here that overlaps with edits made on the other talk page. OlYeller21Talktome 17:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add criticisms to neutralize article?[edit]

I think some criticisms of TOMS' business model should be added to neutralize the article. Here are some opinions:

Arctixfox (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this as adding some value, but none of these are particularly good sources; if there are more reliable references to bring critical content to the page I think it would be worthy of the effort, but not with these sources in particular. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jeremy. I've done my best to keep the article's tone as neutral as I can but criticism is often added without sources or the sources and their opinions aren't particularly notable. A news source as opposed to a fashion blog, etc. would be a good source to use for adding criticisms. OlYeller21Talktome 20:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found this, which I think discusses the issue more broadly than TOMs but also reference it specifically: http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/african-aid-helpful-or-hazardous-0022175 Pdinc (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't even read the article yet but it's refreshing to have someone present an article from a reliable source as opposed to a blog of questionable notability and reliability. Something that Jeremy112233 and I have noticed lately is that Friends of Toms seems to be all but shut down, based on their latest 990s. I'm not sure what the intent was but they don't appear to be running as a non-profit in any sense at this point. 2011's 990s should all be posted now, regardless of extensions, so we will have some more hard information to go on when it comes to balance of coverage.
I'll check the article out and respond back here. I don't see any reason to be quick about this so hopefully we can have a conversation here about this before anything about the article is changed. OlYeller21Talktome 19:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize how many videos are in the article. I don't have time to watch everything right now but based on reading the text and assuming that the videos support those claims, they're making a good case for more criticism being in the article. I'll do my best to get to this in the next two days but obviously that shouldn't stop others from discussing. OlYeller21Talktome 19:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing article issues[edit]

For a company of this notability, this page is pretty basic. I've prepared a new draft in one of my sandboxes that keeps all current copy that is verifiable, and adds news and academic sources. I hope to finalize it and post it soon. As is always the case with Wikipedia, feel free to change it at will upon posting :) Please let review the new draft in terms of its referencing if you have time (upon posting) to ensure I didn't miss anything. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good so far. Thanks for compartmentalizing them by section.
First, you changed that Friends of Toms was formerly run by Toms. There's no evidence to support that they no longer do and I've found information to the contrary (they filled their 990 recently, share the same address, and still list Blake as their President/CEO on their 990). You can find all of that information here. I'll be changing it back when you're done and you'll need to show how you've come to that conclusion if you'd like to change it back again.
The rest looks great so far. I'll comment here if I see any more issues. Thanks for taking the time to contribute to the article and WP. OlYeller21Talktome 18:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Let me know if I've made any other misteps, I can't remember where I saw the closure of Friends with TOMS, but I will search for a reference now. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing it was from their website which has been all but removed from the web. They've also scrubbed (rather conspicuously, in my opinion), Friends of Toms from their website. They've removed it from their FAQ and everything. I can't even find mentions of it on their blog anymore. Someone has taken the time to remove it from the website. Maybe you're right and it just hasn't kicked in yet. They'll have to file 990s until Friends of Toms does no business (maybe for a few years).
Maybe they're shutting it down and just haven't gotten there yet. The goal of FoT could be easily accomplished by other means. I assumed FoT existed so that Toms could donate, get the tax deduction, and control exactly where their deduction was going. All of that can happen if they trust the organization they're donating to and they don't have to deal with the ambiguity of what is essentially a bizzaro tax loophole. This would be a good way to pay yourself, essentially instead of paying taxes while doing something good but (again, conspicuously, in my opinion), the organization has only ever listed two employees (one being Mycoskie) and they've been paid nothing while having over half of its total lifetime donations becoming unnamed assets and paying a "consultant" nearly $60k and paying $25k in for the salary of an unnamed person who's never listed as an employee. FoT's income went from almost $200k in 2009 and about $100k in 2010, to $5k in 2011 even thought they still have $130k in assets listed only as "cash" that went nowhere that year. I wish their documents were due before October 2013 for 2012 so we could see what the hell is going on.
Anyway, I'll look into it. OlYeller21Talktome 01:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any news releases about it. Perhaps we should just ask them to publish a statement. Their CFO's phone number is listed on the 990. OlYeller21Talktome 02:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you go here: http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx and type in "Friends of TOMS" into the Corporation Name search it states the organization is dissolved. But the actual special url can't be obtained. Is this source good enough, and if so, how to we add it to the page? Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good enough for me but I'm not sure that they're the same company. The address and name are different and the date of creation is a few years before others sources show that Friends of Toms existed. I'm guessing there's some information we don't know like that the name of the people who work for Friends of Toms is longer than what they report on their 990 (like the name of the person on the website you listed). I'm going to email Toms and see if they'll make a statement. I'm not even sure how to use that unless they publish it and I'm guessing they're not keen on doing that.
Furthermore, I'm interested in what they plan on doing with the $125k that was sitting in Friends of Toms's bank account at the end of 2011 but that's really besides the point. OlYeller21Talktome 01:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article puts shame on Wikipedia[edit]

This is a sheer marketing driven, propagandistic pro-TOMS' business interests article on Wikipedia. Just shameless, disgustingly so. TOMS business model is deceitful and exploitative, and the CEO Blake Mycoskie still refuses to engage in a "discussion about issues," where he could respond to the many valid criticisms concerning his business model. Oprah999 (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC) contribs) 15:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oprah999, would you be able to provide specific examples of reliable, third-party sources that you feel are being left out of the article? Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How Toms Got Its Name[edit]

The article gives this solid explanation:

The company name (TOMS) is derived from the word "tomorrow,"[7] and evolved from the original concept, "Shoes for Tomorrow Project."[14]

I found YouTube video where the founder explains it to the camera, so I thought this would be an excellent additional source. For some reason that is beyond my understanding, Jeremy112233 has reverted this reference, offering this justification:

Not relevant and non-RS sourcing. You need RS sources to add this, and it must be directly relevant to TOMS.

In the most recent revert, my contribution was called "SPAM". I am absolutely baffled in my effort to understand Jeremy's actions. I am posting here for the purpose of establishing consensus. And if anyone can make logical sense of those objections, that would be great too. Right now to me, it just seems bizarre. Jeremy's [[user page is filled with enough medals to look like the General Patton of Wikipedia, so it would appear that someone upholds these contributions as top quality. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming this page. If you do not know what that means, please look up the reliability of Youtube as a source on Wikipedia and review the founding date of TOMS versus your apparent "inspiration" for the name founded several years later that has absolutely no reliable reference for a connection to TOMS. Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my inspiration for the name. What you are persistently deleting is the primary source of the founder telling his story of how he came up with the name. I fail to see how anyone can possibly see this to be spam. What this is is an historical fact of primary significance (however minor), and this belongs in the article. There are loads of reliable info on YouTube. It would be incumbent upon you to cite any Wikipedia Policy that prohibits this usage if you are going to use that as your basis for deletion.
...and if your argument is that the story that Mycoskie is telling in that video is not accurate, then to be consistent your efforts would be to change the entire statement from the article, not merely to remove this one reference. I remain confused about where you are coming from. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOYT for the use of any YouTube video. Let's just say "House Party Dot Com" is not exactly the kind of channel we can use with such stringent verification requirements.Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To flat our reject anything posted by not generally reliable YouTube channels is to throw out a lot of babies with the bath water. The key word in NOYT is "generally" (from "generally not considered reliable sources"). Clearly the person in the clip I've sourced is Blake Mycoskie in the flesh. No one here is questioning that, and NYOT speaks specifically to the point of authentic primary sources. You yourself could post a video of, say, Barack Obama where he makes a comment about a key issue. It would be totally improper and against the spirit of NYOT to delete your video reference just because it was you who had posted it.
I am reverting your deletion again, for that reason. The biggest problem I see here is the wording of WP:NOYT. It leaves a significant area open that is not specifically addressed. I will not call it a 'grey area', because it is perfectly clear that my actions fit perfectly with the spirit of the policy.
Consider this as an analogy... There are many grade schools that teach a policy that Wikipedia is not an acceptable reference. Why? Because anyone can edit it to say anything they want it to say. Yet, Wikipedia is widely understood to be about the best encyclopedia on the planet, and about the best source of information on the planet. NYOT is in place because anyone can post a video that says anything they want it to say. Yet YouTube has some of the highest quality source information available. This includes videos posted by the general public, along with the "official channels of notable organisations". Think about how much of Wikipedia has been built by non-official editors. Just about ALL of it. This does not mean that all of Wikipedia will therefore be useless unreliable crap. It means that the useless unreliable crap needs to be judiciously rejected in order to build a result that is top-quality. It is clear to me that the intent behind NYOT is to guide us to reject the unreliable info that gets posted. This does not mean that we are to reject authentic primary sources just because the person who posted it is non-official. We could say that these are the reasons why Nupedia withered and died, while Wikipedia has thrived. And an irony here is that even Nupedia would see the video I referenced as an acceptable authentic primary source. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"One for One" and "One Laptop Per Child" Similarities[edit]

I believe it is important to mention the OLPC program in the One for One section. I added this as my effort to improve the article:

This is similar to the One Laptop Per Child program which initially deployed free laptops in February of 2007, and had a Give One Get One initiative.[1]

...but for reasons that I do not understand, Jeremy112233 has reverted it, offering the justification that the source I've cited is not reliable (even though I cited the official OLPC website) and was also called "not relevant" and "SPAM". Curious. Posting here for the purpose of building a consensus (as with the preceding section above). =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOR. In order to add what you are adding you must provide a third-party news source that states that the One Laptop Per Child is relevant to TOMS' business model. You cannot take two sources and combine them on your own, you must find an expert who has said that the laptop initiative is important to TOMS and not something of passing interest. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to fall into WP:OR. Also, you're always going to run into trouble when using YouTube as a reference. Not only are videos easily faked, the video and therefore any trace of the reference, can be removed at any time which causes issues with WP:V.
At any rate, if this is a subject that's worth including, it's easily argued that it would have enough good references to support the claim. If it does, like with this case, maybe it's not worth including right now. OlYeller21Talktome 19:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This particular section about OLPC has nothing to do with YouTube. I'd suggest adding your YouTube-specific comments to the section above.
As for mentioning OLPC in the "One for One" section, I never stated that Toms got their idea from OLPC. If I had done that, then I would agree that it would have been OR. I saw my action as stating a relevant verifiable fact.
My opinion continues to be that it is important to mention OLPC when this article talks about "One for One". I will leave my original edit reverted for the time being, and I hope that other editors here will add their view toward building a consensus. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were wrong in a different manner. Let it go before your vandalism results in a block please :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not anyone else's responsibility to explain the basic rules of Wikipedia to you, bone up and please stop vandalizing. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First you categorized my actions as spamming. Now you are saying it is vandalism. On my UserTalk reply to you, I pointed out the W:AGF policy. All of my edits and all of my Talk Page comments are consistent with good faith edits, yet you now choose to threaten me. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Spamming Wikipedia with Youtube links is vandalism. You have been warned several times and been shown the appropriate policy, but you refuse to follow it. I am simply letting you know very clearly what the typical ramification of ignoring said policy is. Good faith is assumed upon the first instance, not after an editor has clearly stated they refuse to abide by Wikipedia policy. Again, I request that you either find a better source for what you want to add, or let this go. I don't mind taking the time to deal with mistaken views on policy, so long as you work constructively towards a better understanding rather than engaging in an edit war. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have consistently provided to you a thorough explanation as to how my actions conform with NYOT, and more importantly W:IAR above that. I have never seen a Wikipedia vandal act with such respect nor such dedication or persistence in explaining their actions. Perhaps you have.
You persist in mischaracterizing my efforts here. You are now saying that I have clearly stated that I refuse to abide by Wikipedia policy. That is a total fabrication. I have been persistent and quite detailed in how my actions fit with NYOT/IAR.
I will repeat here what I have just posted over on the 3Com Talk Page:
"I see your argument to be weak, with an ultra-rigid interpretation of NYOT, and this goes against the spirit of NYOT, and it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia editing."
Again I insist that my reference here in this article is an improvement to Wikipedia, which conforms to NYOT as I understand it. If you or anyone else can explain the logic behind your own interpretation of NYOT, I would be very interested to see it. (I have a lot of difficulty imagining how such an interpretation could be in the best interest of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia readers.) =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dustin, just because the article talks about One for One does not mean it should include something related to that concept. With that logic, there would be no end to what every article should include.
My opinion is that the content you're attempting to add should not be included in the article at this time.
As for applying IAR here, I don't see any reason to do so. To be honest, in my several years of editing, I can't even think of a time that IAR was applied to content. As a word of unsolicited advice, unless it's really clear that the applicable policies/guidelines don't account for the situation, citing IAR as your reason to do something often makes it seem as though your personal motives are driving your opinion.
Personally, I don't see vandalism going on here but you're pushing it by making changes before any sort of consensus is reached on a contentious issue. I strongly suggest not editing the article again until these issues are addressed. Furthermore, if the involved editors are not enough to achieve a consensus, I suggest inviting more editors to join the discussion via WT:RS, WP:NPOVN, or etc. Just make sure you're not forum shopping. OlYeller21Talktome 02:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may have noticed that after your previous feedback, I have not made any changes to the content of this article. I am fine with waiting for other editors to recognize a need to add mention of OLPC as they see fit.
The current remaining point at issue is regarding not the content of the article, but one small reference that I have added where a YouTube video is provided merely as a supplemental source. Jeremy112233 has persisted in deleting it because the YouTube channel that this video was posted under was not seen to be reliable, and therefore is interpreted to be a violation of NOYT. The position I have voiced, as clearly as I know how to voice, is that the video segment being referenced is clearly a verifiable authentic primary source telling us how he came up with the name Toms.
YouTube is one of the most potent sources of knowledge available to the world today. If we interpret NOYT as rigidly as Jeremy is doing, then we are discarding a HUGE wellspring of excellent information. In other replies, I have compared this to the policy that many gradeschools impose on students that they are prohibited from using Wikipedia when doing their reports. Absolutely ridiculous. The smart way to use YouTube fits perfectly with the smart way to use Wikipedia:
Use these resources judiciously, knowing that they contain some of the best information available, while maintaining caution with the understanding that anybody can post something that says anything they want it to say.
I see this to be a vital issue to the future of Wikipedia. If there was a Wikipedia Supreme Court, then I would say that it was high time that they weighed in on Jeremy's interpretation of NOYT versus my interpretation of NOYT. But there is no such governing body. There are editors at large like you and me.
You have made the decision to revert my edit on the basis of it being a content change. Clearly this is a mistaken notion. OLPC was a content change. Toms being named for "tomorrow" is a statement that I have not changed one bit. Based on this mischaracterization, I am undoing that revert. What is needed here is more editors weighing in on their opinions regarding how NOYT is to be applied. Ideally, the text of the NOYT policy will become more specific so that there will be a lot less grey area between Jeremy's position and my position. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure--WP:NOYT has a talk page, where you can raise any issue pertaining to the policy specifically that you wish (though if you raise the TOMS issue there you will likely be accussed of forum shopping, so be careful to craft your argument generally, using this issue as an example at most). But if you continue edit warring, I will take further steps to bring this abuse to a stop. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any "war". What I see is edit instability based upon a policy that would be a lot better if it was more specific. As the exact wording of NOYT stands today, I see your interpretation of it to fit perfectly with your actions, and I also see my interpretation of it to fit perfectly with my actions. We are both operating within a grey zone that is in need of being better defined. The NOYT Talk Page does not set policy. Now if you had invited me at the start of this to take the entire problem over to that page so that we could work collaboratively toward the most healthy solution for Wikipedia.org, I would have seen that to be GREAT. Instead, you chose to be authoritarian and act as though your understanding of NOYT was the only one possible, and that my intentions here and all of my own personal time that I have put into this effort have been for the primary purpose of spamming and vandalizing this website that I care so much about.
If you would like to initiate a discussion over at the NOYT Talk Page, I would be eager to move this entire matter over there. And that is not an invitation to transport a war, because I have never treated this as a war. I see this to be a disagreement that I have persistently upheld the highest standard of respect and dignity that I know how to uphold. Until we can arrive at a healthier process toward a resolution on this, I remain unpersuaded by the substance of your argument ...which might be summarized as:
"Absolutely no YouTube videos from any channel that does not have a firm reputation for reliability can be used, regardless of the authenticity of the content posted." (My paraphrase)
And based upon this thorough reasoning I have provided, I intend to revert once again. Consensus on NOYT has yet to be established here, and you appear to be confident that bullying tactics are the proper way to enforce policy as you and you alone see fit. (I do not include OlYeller in that, because I have yet to learn what that editor's position is regarding either interpretation of NOYT.) =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what WP:NOYT has to do with this situation because I haven't felt the desire to read through the 800 words of your wall-of-text replies. There's absolutely no need for that kind of reply length for this situation. If you attempt to add the information again before this discussion has ended, I'll be reporting you to WP:ANI for this slow edit warring.

I don't understand why you think that your interpretation simply makes you correct and that you can ignore the opinions of anyone else. It needs to stop immediately.

This, as you have admitted, is a grey zone. WP is filled with grey zones and discussions on individual topics is how those grey zones are dealt with. If you feel that the opinion of the majority in this discussion is not a consensus, then invite more editors to this discussion. OlYeller21Talktome 20:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My early posts here were very concise.
You complain about me being overly verbose, and then you say that I am ignoring the opinions of others. It is clear to me that those two characterizations are incompatible. I have been consistent in carefully weighing the arguments and rationale that I have been presented with, and have consistently presented thorough responses. That is the opposite of ignoring.
As for the central issue regarding the interpretation of NOYT, I see this to have been resolved, ironically, by Jeremy. Details are available over at the 3Com Talk Page, for anyone interested. =Dustin Dewynne (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what you think passes for concise, then I don't think I can help you.
That's great that he solved the issue. As for the the 3Com talk page, I'm thoroughly disinterested. If you start a slow edit war on this article again, I'll report you to WP:ANI. As for this discussion, I'll take your word for it that it's solved and I will no longer be participating. OlYeller21Talktome 05:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "OLPC history". Retrieved June 22, 2013.

Links have been compromised.[edit]

Several of the links listed at the bottom of the article, such as the final one to the Washington Post, do not go where they say they do. i.e. the underlying HTML differs from the visible one. I don't have time to sort this, but it seems that someone else has had time to do the dirty. --86.182.168.135 (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Toms Shoes[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Toms Shoes which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://news.change.org/stories/100-preventable-disease-podo-takes-a-toll
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. General Ization Talk 00:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Toms Shoes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toms_Shoes&oldid=1208200377"