User talk:Ragu22

October 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Terrillja talk  08:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Warheads (candy), you may be blocked from editing. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Please see WP:PRECISION for the full reason on why wikipedia does not follow the capitalization standards of a trademark  Terrillja  talk  18:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

WARHEADS (candy) editing
Terrillja, I read the article, WP:PRECISION. It does not apply, as I am not changing the TITLE of the article, only instances in the article which are not accurate. The editing in question is not even close to being "disruptive", inappropriate, or hard to read. The editing in question is meant to distinguish the WARHEADS branded trademark from other unrelated properties (band, comics, etc.), and to avoid inaccurate representations in the media when Wikipedia is used as a source of reference. SInce both WARHEADS and WIkipedia are unable to prohibit media outlets from using Wikipedia as a source, those outlets then propagate the misuse of our trademark, in violation of both federal law and the intent of the trademark.

I guess the question here is, does Wikipedia wish to be an open source aggregate of accurate information, or merely a semi-open source of dubious and misleading information? The answer to this question is of far higher relevance than whether a broad set of wiii guidelines should be applied to an instance where they are not only not relevant, but actually damaging.

I respectfully request that the edits made to this page be returned at the earliest possible convenience.

Ragu22 (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The title dictates its use throughout the article (for the sake of consistency). And wikipedia does not allow for the naming of articles to be in line with trademarks. For a much higher profile example, see iPod Touch, which is trademarked as iPod touch, but in line with wikipedia policies, is referred to as "Touch" for the purposes of wikipedia. Another example is Kesha, who is marketed as Ke$ha, however wikipedia does not recognize stylistic spellings and is referred to as Kesha throughout her article. It's not a matter of accuracy, it's a matter of sticking to one naming scheme. As for your assertion about misuse of your trademark, see WP:NLT. Alluding to legal defense of your trademark is not appropriate, I'm just following the policies others have set.-- Terrillja talk  21:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your example of the iPod actually reinforces my point. Wikipedia doesn't list it as Ipod. Why not? And if there were 3 other iPod Touch articles, or iPod was commonly referred to as EyePod or i-Pod, perhaps you would have this same problem with Apple, Inc.

Likewise, there are not 3 or 4 Kesha's out there.

That is not the case with WARHEADS, the candy, the band, the munition, etc. The brand commonly, and mistakenly represented as WarHeads, War Heads, and Warheads. Wikipedia is contributing to that misuse.

There's a fine line between consistency that is merited by necessity, and consistency that is adhered to by arbitrary policy. Clearly, Wikidpedia is having trouble distinguishing between the two. Surely there must be some area of leniency in this arbitrary policy when applied to certain extenuating circumstances such as this listing.

Ragu22 (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am still awaiting an answer. Based on the iPod page, it is clear that Wikipedia has the ability to adapt their guidelines to reflect the correct capitalization of a trademarked brand (otherwise, it would be listed in Wikipedia as Ipod, not iPod.)

Please advise on the procedure to appeal for exemption from said guidelines with regard to the WARHEADS brand.

Thankyou.

Ragu22 (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the edit you put on the page referencing the capitalization of WARHEADS. I appreciate your effort. However, if possible, I'd like to use the phrasing found on the iPod page, "(stylized, trademarked, and marketed as WARHEADS)". I believe this verbage more accurately conveys the trademark issue at the heart of this discussion.

Thankyou.

Ragu22 (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have slightly modified the text, however I do not think that it is appropriate to use a term throughout purely for decorative purposes.-- Terrillja talk  23:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)