Talk:Volcano Vaporizer

Archives of past discussions
Archive 1

Official Website?
The official website for the company Storz & Bickel GmbH & CO. KG. and the Volcano Vaporizer is blacklisted hyperlink www.storz-bickel.com. In the pursuit of accuracy and consistency within Wikipedia, it would be significantly relevant to include the company’s official website as an external link. The website contains genuine information not contained in Wikipedia, such as the manufacturer’s technical instructions. Although the website is generally informative, it is not an exception to Wikipedia standards. For comparison, precedent Wikipedia definitions include many companies’ official websites as external links. The extensive list would include such products and companies as, IPod (Apple Inc), Sonicare (Philips), Crocs (Crocs Inc), Segway (Segway Inc), and Krups (Groupe SEB France). Are there suggestions to dismiss the Volcano Vaporizer and Storz & Bickel GmbH from providing the same information as comparable entries? RidingLessons (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just restored a missing link to the manufacturer's site of the Volcano vaporizer, but it was reverted. As questioned above I wonder about keeping out relevant information for readers of the article, too. As already mentioned, it is common and helpful if I want to get information about a specific product (Segway etc.). So please restore relevant link to the benefit of the readers.
 * rgds Esender1 (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This topic has been moved to the top of the discussion to provide chronological relevance and to motivate discussion. Perhaps the earlier question should be rephrased. Does anyone have reason that the official website for the Volcano Vaporizer not be included in the Wikipedia entry? This subject has been addressed before: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:6pVm_vCTsgwJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist+site:en.wikipedia.org+storz+bickel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a Let us reach a consensus. Should this website be censored and blacklisted? RidingLessons (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have restored the correct chronology of the topics on this talk page, and the comments within them, in accord with protocol. The length of this talk page may be sufficient to hinder access to present conversations. If you feel the old conversations are in the way, then the correct procedure is to archive the old discussions. I've gone ahead and done so.


 * The official site of the subject of an article is generally appropriate and recommended for inclusion. However, in this case, the official site is blacklisted (it is not "censored") because of spam problems. You have asked this question and had it answered a couple of times in the correct forum for its discussion — as you know, for you've linked to those discussions. This talk page is not the correct forum for discussing the matter of whether or not the page should be blacklisted; even if we were to have three hundred editors join in the conversation and all of them were to agree the site should not be blacklisted...it would still be blacklisted unless/until the spam concern were to be addressed. And even then, the appropriate forum to take up the issue would be at Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist and/or Mediawiki talk:Spam-whitelist. We can't do anything on the matter effectively here in the article's talk page. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your expertise. Despite my concerted effort to learn and demonstrate proper operating procedure within Wikipedia, at times the instructional copy is a bit dense. I interpreted that returning to this forum to gain consensus would be appropriate. Thank you for the gentle corrections along the way.RidingLessons (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

nonsense
Minimizing or eliminating mention of this devices use for marijuana is idiotic AND deceptive. ike9898 (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)