Jump to content

Talk:Crocs/archive2007

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

Crocs:Talk/archive2007

[edit]

Archive of articles from Crocs:Talk that started and usually ended in 2007.
Mjquin_id (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eating crocs

[edit]

Is it possible to Eat Crocs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.55.156 (talk • contribs)

Theoretically yes. Crocs are listed as "non-toxic", which means you can eat them and you won't get sick. I doubt they have very much nutrional value, however.--JerryLewisOverdrive 19:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation help needed

[edit]

I updated their revenue, operating/net income from their new financial report, but don't know if I need to (or how to) footnote or source it. If it is necessary, can someone do it? http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070220/20070220006361.html?.v=1 is the link. Whatthree16 05:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Story

[edit]

I bought these lame shoes when they ugly and cheap. You could only buy them in general stores in a noname brand for $7. i was made fun of for having them because it was like everyone had nice nike or reebok sandals and i had these shitty clogs. now everyone wears them and you know why? because eventually the parents started to buy them for the kids against their will because they were so cheap. then they started to market them as crocs, added a back support and they raised the price to $35 and sell em in sporting goods stores. and they are so ugly. i cant wait till the lame fad passes. Avenged Evanfold 21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a story. 24.192.17.34
What does this have to do with the actual Wikipedia entry? --72.16.137.170 12:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not much, except for the fact that the Wiki entry is about as NPOV as this guy's bad experience with the shoes.

not much more then $10 here Mibo123 06:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Note from Tearfree: I inserted information on a series of Crocs escalator accidents. although the link in question is to my own blog, I do not believe that should be a problem. I have covered this issue for six months, published e-mails from the Crocs company and am either #1 or #2 when you google Crocs and escalators. My site is a clearing house for Crocs info and it is silly to simply delete it. If KM Brown had acted in good faith he would have at least added links to other sites reporting on the escalator accidents, which he did not. My sitemeter appears to indicate that he is from Colorado, making me wonder if he has some connection to the CRocs company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tearfree (talk • contribs)

Tearfree, you need to take a chill-pill, review wikipedia's guidelines on citations and objectivity, and consider that because someone edits your entry, it doesn't imply bias or a conspiracy.
Citations should always be to primary sources (i.e. a direct link to a news article from a neutral source), and should include the web link in a footnote, or with a numeric link at the end of the sentence. You inserted it directly into the body of the article, which is typically reserved for cross-referencing other articles. I see from your history you've posted here enough to know better.
Also, I consider it highly inappropriate to post the results of ip-traces on discussion pages, which only undermines your point of view and makes you sound paranoid. I don't work for crocs; neither do about four million other people in Colorado. My daughter's buying me a pair, and I thought I'd reference wikipedia for info when I saw your post and followed what I thought was a wikipedia link to a related article, but was instead a clear attempt to promote one's own agenda.
Be aware that I've reported you to the webmasters for this conduct. -- KMBrown 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girly?

[edit]

Are they girly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.154.248.103 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

yeah i think so personally - Stoph 21:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ (sorry for the late edit). I just bought a pair and they do have them in "men-type" colours. They're actually really good! Ginbot86 (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've copyedited to address the "advertising" tag. I revised the citation format, to include article title, publisher, author and date. I'm tempted to trim the Products section, to just the four main classes of shoe offered, with variations listed. That should allow room for the other products the company sells, anyways. --Lexein 08:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There is a revert war going on, which must stop. This is a warning to all engaged:

  • All edits must be accompanied by Edit Summaries, or discussion in Talk, or risk reversion.
  • External links must be of informational use, not merely advertising for a store.

Thank you for your cooperation. --Lexein 14:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not any old revert war, this is someone (always IP address) adding the same online-shop to the article time and again, and several brave souls not allowing him to do so. Should we semi-protect this page? How is that done? Samfreed 13:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That might not be suffient as the targets are also other related articles, e.g. today[1]. I think there is some black list of links. I will check that.Tikiwont 14:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blacklist is at Meta: [2]. Here are some links that show how the link is added http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/192.117.38.14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.94.105.204 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.219.221.102 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.203.92.86

and maybe after the next wave or so, we may want to post it. --Tikiwont 14:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now proposed this for the blacklist. [3] --Tikiwont 09:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is included now. My last revert was only necessary to restore the comment on the official crocs site. --Tikiwont 11:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of that. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, the online store won't take the hint; they've set up an alternate site and are spamming with it now. The new site should be added to the blacklist, but they can keep creating sites as fast as we can keep blocking them. Capmango 18:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's any consolation it takes more time and moeny for them to add domains then it is for us to block them. 21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Croslite PCCR

[edit]

What actual resin are they made from? poop.

I'd imagine that's a trade secret. Radagast 04:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. It's described in their patent. They are made from ethylene vinyl acetate and I have added this information to the article with citations. —ptk✰fgs 22:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please stop adding the Facebook link to the article. It is a self-published source and we need a third-party source commenting on the group before it is appropriate to add here. Additionally, social networking sites such as Facebook are a type of external link to be avoided unless there is a significant reason to break with our usual policy. Thanks. —ptk✰fgs 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like enough to support a claim that anti-Crocs groups are springing up on social networking sites. However since it does not mention the group by name, a convenience link is clearly still not justified. —ptk✰fgs 23:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RTBM-07-08-24.jpg

[edit]

Image:RTBM-07-08-24.jpg 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 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 17:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading chapter

[edit]

Under "fashion & media" chapter it says: "The well-known website The Best Page in the Universe run by published author Maddox criticized Crocs on October 29th (e.g. stating that "the only thing that goes with Crocs is social ostracism.") and on October 31st, the stock CROX took a drastic drop from $75 per share to slightly under $40 per share points, dropping the stock back to where it was six months ago."

This gives the impression that Maddox' article was the reason the stock dropped. Common sense & the sources given indicate this clearly wasn't the reason, and I think the info about the stock should be moved somewhere else, if kept at all. 81.197.127.79 21:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed that. I agree that it's a silly assertion. Until anyone can find a reliable source making that connection, it doesn't belong in the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Maddox

[edit]

We need to stop vandalism to this article - Maddox's site has a huge and extremely devoted following that will not stop at editing this page. Furthermore, the comments ARE relevant as Maddox is a published author and runs a widely read blog site. He is a popular media figure. He made a reference to Crocs. The information is cited. There is nothing wrong with putting Maddox information in the media section. To do otherwise would shield the Crocs company from valid media criticism and render the Media section as incomplete / misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honorkell (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with quoting Maddox in the criticism section (Crocs have plenty of notable detractors). On the other hand, it's patently ridiculous to suggest that his comments had any bearing on the stock price; reasons for the price drop are well-documented on various finance sites, including those referenced. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Maddox's effect on stock prices is sketchy at best - most likely coincidental. At the very least its undocumented. That's why I put the comments into Fashion / media. A nice compromise that should satisfy all parties, not to mention that's where the comments belong (unless they are shown to lead to the stock price drop by a reputable authority - not likely.) I think we can put this issue to rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honorkell (talk • contribs) 03:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with Maddox being mentioned in the media section along with other detractors. However, his statement about the stock price fall is too trivial to be mentioned in the context of the company's financial issues, and as such belongs at Maddox, for the same reasons why the Kazakhstan article doesn't have Borat "trivia." OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crocs/archive2007&oldid=1087723507"