Talk:Eisenhower jacket

message: Why cant all articles be this awesome?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.0.158 (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because most of our articles obey policies like WP:No original research and the WP:Manual of style. This one does not. Statements like the Ike jacket is a Machiavellian victory of form over function. Born from jealous rivalry and a clash of vanities that pitted Eisenhower against Britain’s Field Marshall Bernard Law, its history chronicles the maneuverings of their political and media celebrity power struggles played out on a world stage at the brink of destruction do not belong in a serious encyclopaedia article. Robofish (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why cant all articles be this awesome?

message: Wikipedia's "Eisenhower Jacket" page is a word-for-word plagiarization of a chapter from my pre-published manuscript and represents an intentional and purposeful theft of intellectual property.  The only material in this profile that is not being illegally used without my permission or appropriate attributin is the opening sentence and "Miscellaneous" category.  All other materials, including photographs -- which I, not Wikipedia, gained re-print/reusage permission -- and bibliographic attribtions are taken from the "Ike Jacket" chapter in my "Iconic Fashion Classics.  A Storied History of Fashnion."  Neither myself, nor my manuscript, is attributed, as is legally required.  Also, usage of this material, which includes original research, photo images, and bibliography/attribution listing, are all properietary and are being used without express my permission or consent.  All, in other words, is stolen and being illegally used in flagarant violation of U.S. copyright laws.   
I am eliminating all from Wikipedia's "Eisenhower Jacket" profile page.  If any of my original reseach should again appear on this page, or in any referece to the "Ike Jacket," "Eisenhower Jacket," "M-43" or "M-44 Field Jacket," "British Field Jacket," or "WWII blouson," I will very aggressively pursue legal recourse and financial damages against both Wikipedia and its editors. 
Unfortunately, Wikipedia can't have it both ways. You can not have your cake and eat it, too. 
As for my intent to follow through and pursue legal recourse against Wikipedia and its editors for intellectual theft and plagiarizing my proprietary materials without my permission, let me summarize by paraphrasing a once popular pop cult favorite of Dirty Harry:  "Go 'head, punk, make my day."  
In the meantime, please re-read the Eishowwer Jacket comment from one of the article's readers:  "Why cant all articles be this awesome?"  So, why can't they?  Wikipedia is dull, boring, insipid and truthfully, sophoric and mundane. Is there a legislative law that mandates all enclycopedic material be so terribly dull and boring as Wikipedia.  Wake-up!!69.237.227.99 (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just from looking over your commentary, I consider it moderately unlikely you could write anything coherent, much less something worth plagiarizing. Also, we don't take kindly to legal threats around here. HalfShadow 23:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a serious accusation, and we do take plaigiarism seriously at Wikipedia. You have two choices: you can pursue your plaigiarism complaint through the court, or here at Wikipedia.  If you want to pursue the case through the courts, that's fine, but our rules require that we block you from editing while you're engaged in suing Wikipedia.  If you'd rather help us look into this and correct it here, we can- but you'll need to clearly and unconditionally retract your threat of legal action.  Once you've done that, we'd love to have more information about how your unpublished work made its way to Wikipedia (do you have it on the internet somewhere that we can look at?) and how we can verify that you're the author.  Threatening us isn't helpful- we would help just by being asked nicely- and we do need a little more help from you in verifying your claim. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, this is confusing; this material seems to have been added by you, under your User:SRELY&P username.  Is this correct?  Can you clarify this? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: And at the very least, can we have some indication of which pre-published manuscript is supposed to be plagiarized from? Franamax (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism

message: I'm adding some.Wipsenade (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources