Talk:ECCO/Archives/2013

soles

there prob needs to be some mention that a tremendous amount of the soles on ecco's fail. A simple Google search will prove this.151.207.246.4 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a product review website, but feel free to add that to the article if you feel that it's relevant and you have a reliable source to cite. I've had a contrary experience over several years with Ecco shoes. 166.199.71.48 (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources given in this section do not meet Wikipedia standards. I'm removing http://honeypot.net/pictures/ecco-shoes/ and quoting the Wikipedia guidelines:"Self-published media, where the author and publisher are the same, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." I'm a satisfied 10 years user of ECCO shoes, soles have never been an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisg77 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm re-adding it. The guidelines say "are *largely* not acceptable", not "are *wholly* not acceptable". The blog at honeypot.net includes a photo gallery of submissions from multiple third parties who are not the author corroborating the experience of shoe failure. Your ten years of satisfaction is commendable but does not undo the documented problems of others. Just Some Guy (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If wikis and group blogs are 'largely' unacceptable, this puts the burden of proof on you to make a clear case for their use as sources. You have not convinced me. The websites you are citing present unverifiable personal experiences of a few people. Hundreds of websites exist, claiming that "Apple sucks" or that "Coca-Cola sucks" but they are not worthy of mention on Wikipedia. If you find a decent article, it will be welcome. I am removing the blogs and the Facebook group that you cite. Chrisg77 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Chrisg77

Re-read that. The honeypot.net photo gallery includes photographic evidence submitted from many sources. That's objectively different from saying "Apple sucks". Just Some Guy (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Can an editor with experience please look at the following references that i have been removing -for not meeting the quality standards of an encyclopaedia- and that Just Some Guy (above in the comments) has been re-adding. This has been going on for a long time and it is my opinion against his. The links he wants to include are the following:

- http://honeypot.net/ecco-shoes title=Ecco Shoes fall apart

- http://ctwatchdog.com/2010/03/14/ecco-shoes-warning-almost-new-expensive-shoes-disintegrate title=Almost New Expensive Shoes Disintegrate

- http://alatefragment.blogspot.com/2009/07/ecco-shoes-fall-apart-into-sticky-tar.html title=Ecco Shoes Fall Apart into a Sticky Tar!

- https://www.facebook.com/groups/102429213718 title=Ecco Shoes Suck!

Chrisg77 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Experienced editors: what's the proper method for protecting a page from repeated pro-corporate edits from a single-issue editor who seems hell-bent on whitewashing it? Just Some Guy (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

On 11 January 2013‎ editor Velella removed these same references and send me this note: " I fully support your deprecation of blogs as a reliable source in this and any article." I ask you to please stop labeling your edits as "reverting vandalism". We are edit warring over what constitutes acceptable references. We are not committing vandalism, either you or me. From the help sections: "Edit warring over content is not vandalism", "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism" and "Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." Chrisg77 (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Slavery, Cruelty to Animals

I deleted the above section from the article because: 1. The source text is only available in German. 2. It doesn't even mention Ecco. 3. It does, however, mention Timberland - why that part was quoted in the article on Ecco by whoever made the edit is anybody's guess. 93.92.177.23 (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism, likely by Ecco?

There have been repeated, identical edits from random IP addresses that all serve the same purpose: removing links to websites that document problems with ECCO's shoes:

(cur | prev) 05:16, 25 November 2012‎ 195.245.215.123 (talk)‎ . . (7,020 bytes) (-731)‎ . . (→‎Quality) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:25, 14 November 2012‎ 217.76.201.116 (talk)‎ . . (7,019 bytes) (-732)‎ . . (→‎Quality) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:05, 1 November 2012‎ 130.185.41.233 (talk)‎ . . (7,019 bytes) (-733)‎ . . (→‎Quality) (undo)

(cur | prev) 11:05, 23 October 2012‎ 95.111.245.95 (talk)‎ . . (6,949 bytes) (-733)‎ . . (→‎Quality) (undo)

(cur | prev) 01:44, 12 October 2012‎ 37.19.232.235 (talk)‎ . . (6,950 bytes) (-732)‎ . . (→‎Quality) (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:19, 12 September 2012‎ 84.232.141.15 (talk)‎ . . (6,949 bytes) (-572)‎ . . (→‎Quality) (undo)

(cur | prev) 09:07, 16 August 2012‎ 82.77.155.68 (talk)‎ . . (6,889 bytes) (-572)‎ . . (→‎Quality) (undo)

I'm almost to the point of requesting that the page be considered for semi-protection as it seems to meet the criteria for it. Any thoughts? While I don't like the idea of blocking anonymous editors from contributing to the page, neither does it seem right that a collection of anonymous editors from random IPs should be allowed to continually remove content unfavorable to the corporation described in the page. — Just Some Guy (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Response: These edits were made by me, chrisg77, a new contributor on Wikipedia, in no way related to ECCO. I'm a satisfied client and long time customer. I commented the following when my edits were repeatedly undone: "The sources cited are personal webpages with no merit. The criticism voiced sounds personally motivated rather than based on evidence, the language used is oddly emphatic ('slippery soles are a huge problem for the elderly')" In its current form the section on soles has no place on this page, i will amend by following the Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisg77 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on ECCO/Archives/2013 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: None of the sources listed above or which are currently used in the Criticism section are, in my opinion, usable in Wikipedia, because none of them meet the definition of a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. They should be removed and replaced with a {{cn}} tag. If no reliable source is provided within a reasonable time, say a month, then the text that they support can be removed as well. However, I would suggest that Chrisg77 should — not must, but should — refrain from being the person to do that in light of his admitted conflict of interest as an advocate of this product, admitted in this edit, combined with the fact that he has edited no article at Wikipedia other than this one. I would suggest that he instead add {{request edit}} to a new section at the bottom of this talk page and request what I just suggested above. The instructions for use of that template are here. It could take quite awhile, don't be in a hurry. To Just Some Guy, I would strongly suggest that you find some better sources. The ctwatchdog.com source comes close, but nothing there establishes its "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required — it's not optional, it's required — by WP:SOURCES. The rest of the existing sources simply do not come close. (And the "largely" in WP:SELFPUBLISH doesn't mean what you're asserting it to mean. What it means is explained in the rest of WP:SELFPUBLISH and in the following WP:ABOUTSELF section.) If you're unsure about a source, you can ask about it at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a consumer advocacy site and that sometimes there are great wrongs which are unquestionably true which cannot be reported here simply because the sources which report them do not come up to Wikipedia's standards. If this situation is as bad as you believe it to be, the reliable sources are out there and you just have to find them. To both editors: You're both very new here. Thank you for working to improve Wikipedia. Before locking horns over an issue such as this, let me suggest that you both rack up a couple or three thousand edits working on other unrelated articles, then come back to this one if you're still interested. It'll wait.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

References not usable in Wikipedia

Edit made. Wilipino (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Following the Third Opinion advice given above by TransporterMan, this is to request that the list of references in section ECCO#Criticism#Quality be removed for not meeting the definition of a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, a tag should be used instead. I agree with TransporterMan that, being a long time customer of ECCO shoes, i may not be the best person to proceed with this edit. Chrisg77 (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)