Talk:Shaker-style pantry box

Advertising

In june, Billyshiverstick (talk · contribs) added text here) that in my sincere opinion is straightforward ADVERTISING, with an URL to a company webside, and with commercial language such as "allowing people to make ...". Billyshiverstick is an fresh user account with a limited range of interests; he has aslo added "information" about the same company to the article Milk paint (here).

When i visited this article yeaterday to add a link to Heat bending of wood, I also removed Billyshiverstick's advertising. My edit was reversed 8 hours later by User:7&6=thirteen. Since this was such an obvious case IMO, i would urge 7&6=thirteen to explain how this section of text is not advertising. Bw --Orland (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I moved it to a note/reference section. It could be (probably should be) reworded to alleviate your concern. Have at it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed the advert. Apparently you didn't get the message. There is a reference now. I disagree with your approach. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

We must have very different views on what should be considered an advert, 7&6=thirteen!? With your version, the statement "Milk paint is incredibly durable, lasting 100s of years when used indoors" is sourced indirectly with a link to a commercial manufacturer/distributor of milk paint. IMO the sentence "[milk paint is] allowing people to make very authentic replications of Shaker bentwood boxes" is also commercial in style. Plus, there are several manufacturers of milk paint out there; why is it NPOV to use just one of them as a source for the sentence metioned? Please explain again how these sentences and the "source" is not ADVERTISING. Bw --Orland (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User: Doug Coldwell found another reference. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Billyshiverstick here. You are way out of line, Orland. Wikipedia has been my home page for maybe a decade, and I have been quietly improving articles, usually with subtle text edits to help blend the different grammar that crops up due to multiple sources in one paragraph or even sentence.

I was editing the Milk Paint article for other reasons when I decided to add the link. I am not connected with or profiting from Nitty Gritty in any way. Consider the following. Milk paint is the most ecological interior paint in existence. It is also very aesthetically pleasing, as I know from using it for decades on custom furniture. Before this planet completely is destroyed by overuse of petrochemicals, we can all try and preserve it somewhat. True milk paint is very hard to source, and people searching for it will come to wikipedia. Giving them a link is in the common interest. Nitty Gritty know more about Milk Paint than you ever will, and researchers can now follow the link and fill out the ridiculously sparse and in cases erroneaous information I found on the Milk Paint page when I arrived.

I think you owe me an apology, and you should put the link back in. Ben. Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Billyshiverstick. You've adressed me on two different places. I've given you an answer here. Bw Orland (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

So we are all clear here, I think the tone of my edits (which included revising the notes) on Milk Paint we're easily proper. User: Doug Coldwell eliminated them and put in another source. I simply chose to note challenge or contest the deletion, even though I thought it went overboard. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. Orland has displayed (IMO) a hypersensitivity that I do not share. Billyshiverstick could tone down the rhetoric to something slightly more encyclopedia. I respectfully suggest that you two put your knives down and work this through for the good of the project. But I am bored with this discussion, and will move on to something more productive. There are five million articles out there that need our help. Best regards to you all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

See also WP:DCGAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)