Talk:Omaha Steaks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why do some editors keep removing information about Omaha Steaks' spamming activities? Companies that hire spammers and that have been caught deserve to be embarassed until they quit and have cleared their name in the appropriate spam research groups. Jesse Viviano 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] omaha steaks employees blanking this page
If Omaha Steaks objects to the contents of this page, they need to refute the information herein intelligently.
Wikipedia is an open source enyclopedia meant to have objective content and facts. It is not intended to either market or defend any entity.
As such, it is inappropriate and unethical to censor any facts herein.
A refuation with facts, however, would be an appropriate and ethical response.
At any rate, it doesn't matter how many times Omaha Steaks blanks this page.
Someone like me will simply keep returning to restore it.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Censorship-is-evil (talk • contribs)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OmahaSteaksLogo.gif
Image:OmahaSteaksLogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] COI editing of this article
See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Omaha Steaks for info. Videmus Omnia 03:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spamming Allegations
I'm a neutral editor and I must say that some of the spamming allegations are inadequately sourced. The Spamhaus link is dead and the one right next to is an anonymous blog that fails WP:RS, especially as the allegations are serious. So I'm removing the Spamhaus discussion. There's nothing inappropriate about the discussion itself, it's just not properly sourced. If it can be properly sourced, it can be reinserted.
The Business Week article should remain, although frankly it doesn't say much. The bit about the requirements of US law is inappropriate in the context of this discussion and is probably an OR synthesis, so I'm removing it as well. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Spamhaus record was removed just in the past day or so. Many of us have received torrents of their spam in the past but they haven't had many recent complaints, so it's not a major issue and I won't bother to scour the web for sources to justify putting it back in. It's just as well to let Ms. Weiss win one as a gesture of good faith on our part. Snakesouls 04:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Just to be clear, Wikipedia is not a contest or competition to be won. It's an encyclopedia. Editors should be open minded, just like you were with regard to the spam issue. I expect you did not mean "win" literally, but I think I would be remiss if I did not point that out. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The dates in your links are not very recent. It looks to me like they stopped spamming a few years ago, but just didn't bother to get their Spamhaus record cleared until this month. Which is probably not notable. Power piglet 18:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Heh, I never said I was trying to prove the case that they were spamming, one way or the other. Just trying to help... As an aside, after what period of time does an event become non-notable? I'm kinda new around here... --SXT40 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't think there's any set period of time. It's just my opinion, and I'm certainly nobody important here on Wikipedia. One could certainly argue that it's still notable. :-) Power piglet 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
(reset indent) It's not our job to report on every bit of trivia minutiae. These details about past spamming are not pertinent in my opinion. We aren't here to crusade against spam. Jehochman Hablar 19:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hrm, not sure where that came from, but, OK! Thanks! --SXT40 20:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted text with spam claims that and references that do not meet wikipedia's definitions of reliable sources. Business Week meets that criteria, but the others I deleted do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiehead (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Incessant Phone Spam!
Omaha Steaks calls me every day, despite my asking them to remove me from their list. They are an evil company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.79.208 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
