Talk:Stitch 'n Bitch

message: are clear that speedy can only be used under narrow conditions
A7 cannot be invoked if there is any assertion of notability. G11 can not be used if there is any reasonable way to save the article. There is no provision for speedy over ATT or unsourced. There is no speedy for COI.  If uncontroversial, deletions for insufficient N being asserted or proved or high spam levels or COI go to prod, otherwise to AfD, which is where they will be discussed. Don't try to shortcut the regular ways of doing things. The purpose is that debatable matters can be notified to the general WP community, and not just  the people involved over the page itself. The above discussion illustrates the need for it. DGG 00:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it illustrates that more people should be responding to legal inquiries to the Wikimedia Foundation, so that we have a clear directive about what to do when we receive a takedown notice...but that's just my opinion. Obviously, you disagree. alphachimp 04:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All the policies

message: I tagged the claim that Stoller's patent was denied for being similar to that of Sew Fast/Sew Easy as needing a citation.  This is true, but the only source I've found so far is the Boycott Sew Fast Sew Easy website which is not exactly a neutral source.  If this article is going to include a discussion of why Stoller's trademark was denied should also include Stoller's later petition to have SFSE's trademark canceled entirely , which is still pending .  I would be curious to hear others' opinions on which direction this article should go. LyrlTalk     C   15:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag on Stoller patent application 

message: The provided reference for Sew Fast/Sew Easy's stitch and bitch nights is from 2000, and so does not support the statement that the message board was founded after such nights were hosted.  The Village Voice advertisement also does not mention crochet.  I've changed the wording of the phrase to match how it is printed in the Village Voice ad, and edited the article to remove the chronological and crochet claims.
The Vogue reference does not support the claim that the original trademark grant applied to instruction manuals.  I have changed the reference for that sentence to the actual trademark description from the USPTO so that the reference supports the sentence.  I have also edited that sentence to reflect the fact that the original trademark specifies a sewing message board and sewing manuals.
A message was left on my Talk page that included the statement "Though your recent update states that the trademark does not cover products.  US law allows the sale of products to support a registered trademark."  I myself am almost entirely ignorant of US trademark law - I'm trying with this article to report the claims of each side in the dispute, without implying that either side is "correct".  I do find it notable that Sew Fast/Sew Easy has applied for a second trademark specifically for supplies, patterns, manuals, and other products for sewing, knitting, and crochet.  I've edited this article to referenced this pending trademark rather than to claim that this usage is not covered.  It is confusing to me that Sew Fast/Sew Easy has applied for a product trademark if such usage was covered by its original trademark?
The link to the USPTO status report on Stoller's trademark application only says that the trademark is currently "suspended", not anything about why it was refused in 2005.  Since the reference did not support the claim, and I also believe this issue is better gone into depth in the "Dispute" section of this article rather than the "Knitting groups" section, I have removed the phrase "for being confusingly similar to Sew Fast Sew Easy's".  I just believe it is inappropriate for the "Knitting groups" section - I would be happy to see it added (with a different source, of course) as part of the "Dispute" section of this article.
In reference to the legal threats against Wikipedia, the phrase "because it is confusingly similar with their brand" was added in front of the reference to the Wikipedia protection log, which (probably mistakenly) implied that the protection log supported this claim.  I moved the reference back to the statement it supports (only that there was such a threat, not what its contents were), and tagged the new phrase for a citation.  A scanned copy of the letter in question would work, or a documented statement by one of the involved parties, or there are probably other ways to document this I can't think of off the top of my head.  It just needs documentation. LyrlTalk     C   16:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other edits

message: The statement "On June 11, 2007, Stitch & Bitch Cafe becomes a live space for learning sewing, knitting and crochet within the Sew Fast Sew Easy business" is currently referenced to a blog that says nothing about "June 11, 2007" or a "live space for learning" or, for that matter, "knitting and crochet".  The blog mentions only sewing resources, and that the message board now has videos available - is this what the "live space" claim is supposed to mean?  That statement should be edited to better reflect the source it is cited to.  I have not edited it myself because I'm not sure what it's supposed to say. LyrlTalk     C   16:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remaining concerns

message: I have read much of the internet postings and newspaper articles concerning this, and have been asked to help sort things out by a family member who is not a computer expert... I am a computer geek who knows a knitter.
It seems the someone representing Sew Fast Sew Easy gets to state fact, when it is just their "interpretation", not fact. (The do not provide references). Also, because no one knows who I am, I state things as "my opinion" when I believe them to be fact. (They are then deleted. I am being punished for being honest, where SFSE is being rewarded for being dishonest).
Looking through the history, I noticed that a third book, that I didn't know about, was added and then deleted. Why?
Also in the following section, it needs to be clear that the mark that SFSE was granted is not the same as the phrase they were trying to stop people from using. (Cafe being the key difference). It also needs to be made clear that SFSE was granted a mark that related strictly to sewing, not knitting or crochet).
> Sew Fast Sew Easy Policiing Their Trademark 
>
> In fall 2005, Sew Fast Sew Easy took legal action to police its trademark to prevent consumer confusion with products found on the internet. Due to letters claiming trademark 
> infringement from Sew Fast/Sew Easy's lawyers, knitting groups that had accounts with CafePress, an online merchandise site, were forced to remove all items featuring the 
> phrase "Stitch 'n Bitch". Local groups that communicated with each other through Yahoo! Groups were similarly forced to remove "Stitch 'n Bitch" from the name and description 
> of their group.[6] (Most groups changed their name on Yahoo! to SNB.)[7] CafePress and Yahoo! do not evaluate merits of infringement claims, they just protect their interest 
> by removing disputed content.[6] In 2007, the internet encyclopedia Wikipedia was sent a cease and decist order requesting their company information be posted in the online 
> encyclopedia since they are the legal trademark owners or have the entire article removed[8] because it is confusingly similar with their brand.[citation needed]
In the above section the title is very subjective. SFSE claims that they are "policing", when they are illegally trying to leverage their nonrelated trademark to "cash in" on the success of the "Stich 'N Bitch" book. Keep in mind that SFSE's mark is for sewing only and contains the work "cafe" which is integral to their mark). 
The fact of the matter is that both sides of the dispute will have some difficulty claiming exclusive use of the term, due to the fact that the term predated both trademarks. (See reference regarding WWII... I have been told be someone from that era that this is in fact true.)
One note: I have to say that SFSE's case that they are spinning seems insane. (If you read their claims, they reject the fact that there are any books with "Stitch N' Bitch" as part of the title. They also reject the fact the Ms. Stoller(Stroller?) is a US citizen. They in fact reject many "facts" in their response. (I haven't finished going through all the back and forths yet, but it is definately amusing to read).
Also, what is up with SFSE threatening to sue wikipedia? (SFSE does not own the mark 'Stitch 'n Bitch', so they really can't force Wikipedia to take down the article.)
Also SFSE (I presume) keeps moving themselves to the top of the article, when in fact the knitting groups are the primary originators of the term..  It seems that none of these non-profit knitting groups had the financial resources to mount a counter defense, after SFSE illegally threatened them.)
Also they are illegally marking their products "Stitch & Bitch (TM)" when in fact they don't own the trademark. http://www.sewfastseweasy.com/items/stitch+and+bitch
HelixOne 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on 16-July edits

message: I have a number of concerns relating to a series of edits (diff) made by 71.247.77.123 and 70.18.50.181.  I've listed them below. LyrlTalk     C   00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More comments on 16-July edits 

message: I agree with HelixOne that the knitting groups are the primary users of the term, and should be listed first.  I'm open to hearing arguments otherwise. LyrlTalk     C   00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section order

message: The Telegraph article says, "Miss Meyrich... Founded Sew Fast Sew Easy in 1993 and the Stitch'N'Bitch café© in 1997."  If this is the reference used, the article text needs to say 1997.  If this information is incorrect, then a new reference needs to be found.  I'm open to changing the date to 1998 - but we need a new reference.  Changing the date without changing the reference mischaracterizes the reference.
The Round Bobbin advertisement was published in 1999 and mentions only sewing.  Again, using this reference after a sentence about a 1997 start of groups that included knitting and crochet is a mischaracterization.  The information can be changed if a new reference is found, but if the Round Bobbin advertisement is the source, the article needs to talk about a 1999 sewing group.
The link to the Stitch & Bitch line of products only proves that the product line exists.  A claim that this product line supports their existing trademark would need a different reference - a statement by a lawyer, for example.  The link to the product line can not be used as a reference to support a legal opinion.  
The link to the Wikipedia protection log only proves that a legal threat was made.  The contents of that communication are not mentioned anywhere in the protection log.  A description of the language in this letter to Wikipedia needs to have its own reference.
Similarly, the motives of Sew Fast/Sew Easy in sending cease and desist letters are not mentioned in any of the article's current sources.  These motives are good information for the article, but they need a source. LyrlTalk     C   00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing information without changing references

message: The date Sew Fast/Sew Easy filed for their second trademark application (a few months before the cease and desist letters began) was removed from this article.  I am really confused as to how this is not relevant.
The list of books by Stoller was deleted from the article.  The books have their own section (titled "Book") - I believe listing the books at the end of the article is relevant content.
The contact information for the knitting groups was deleted.  Again, the knitting groups are one of the topics of this article, so I believe linking to further information on them is relevant.
The blog post providing amateur legal analysis was also deleted from the external links section.  While not a reliable source for information in the article itself, I believe the post provides additional background information readers interested in the dispute would find useful. LyrlTalk     C   00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of information relevant to article

message: To my mind, the list of books by the title "Stitch 'N Bitch" is no more promotional than the link to Sew Fast Sew Easy's message board.  Both are resources readers of this encyclopedia article can use to learn more about the usage of the phrase "Stitch 'n Bitch".  I'm curious what 70.18.50.181 reasoning is behind leaving the SFSE link in place but deleting the Stoller book titles. 
I'm bothered that my edits on 17-July were reverted with only the comment "blog and changes made earlier are irrelevant to this trademark".  I put a lot of effort into explaining each edit and in making my case here on the talk page.  I would appreciate an attempt to find a compromise on these issues rather than simple back-and-forth edits on the article. LyrlTalk     C   20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on 18-July edits 

message: The content of this article is to explain how the term is used. References to blogs about a protest are speculative information. There are not a lot of hard facts on the content of the blogs and should be removed as a resource. Sew Fast Sew Easy's trademark and stoller's copyrighted items are valid resources for wikipedia, but Sew Fast Sew Easy had the trademark in use first so should be on top of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.199.36 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 August 2007
:Vogue Knitting and Knit.1 are reliable sources of knitting-related information.  The call for a boycott related to the dispute over this term is verified by the magazine references.  I do not believe that two sentences acknowledging the existence of this protest are undue weight.
:I believe the blog linked to in the "external links" section meets the requirements at Wikipedia:External links.  Specifically, I believe it qualifies based on criteria #4 of Links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."  I would like to include an external link to a source that favors the Sew Fast/Sew Easy side of the dispute to balance the blog - please add one if you are aware of such an article or come across one.
:Regardless of who did what first, the "Knitting" and "Book series" sections are very short.  When a reader first comes to the page, if those two sections are on top, the reader will see both those sections and "Sew Fast/Sew Easy" all on the page at the same time.  Because the "Sew Fast/Sew Easy" section is so much longer, if it is on top readers with smaller monitors and/or larger resolution settings will see only the "Sew Fast/Sew Easy" section, and have to scroll down to see the other two sections.  Perhaps we could shorten the "Sew Fast/Sew Easy" section by removing the sub-headers?  I also think the order of these sections would not seem so important if we could agree on an introduction.  I had earlier proposed a first sentence of
::"The phrases Stitch 'n Bitch, Stitch and Bitch, and Stitch & Bitch are disputed trademarks in the United States."
:I never got feedback on that - what do you think of it?
:Wikipedia has a policy of requiring references for all material in the articles.  Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability.  The 1997 beginning date for "stitch and bitch nights" cannot be included in this article without a reference that specifies 1997.
:The label on the SFSE product line has an ampersand, not the word "and".  For consistency, I made the section title include ampersands rather than the word "and".
:The section on Stoller's trademark actions only describes trademark actions initiated by Stoller.  I believe it is appropriate to include her name in the header.
:I removed duplication of the synonyms "pending" and "suspended" when referring to Stoller's trademark applications.  I also changed the language to match that in the extension request - to me, it reads more formally and encyclopedia-like.
:The link to the Chicago knitting group should not be removed.  Like the SFSE link, it meets criteria #1 in Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked:"Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any."
:I'm confused about why the categories were changed. :Category:Brand, :Category:Notion, and :Category:Trademark do not exist - notice how those links are all red.  I changed the categories back to ones that actually exist. LyrlTalk     C   22:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on 7-August edits 

message: We have more legal threats on OTRS about this, I have suggested that Sew Fast Sew Easy engage here, but I - regrettably - see they have a history of unproductive edits to the article in a misguided effort to promote their POV. --Brianmc 10:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the notification. LyrlTalk     C   22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal threats 

message: Having two medium-sized images on the same sub-section of an article this small really overwhelms the article.  I would like to remove one of them.  The removed image could be added to Sew Fast Sew Easy.  Any opinions on which one to keep and which one to take out? LyrlTalk     C   01:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images taking over article 

message: I've again removed the links to the This Ain't No Boston Tea Party blog and that for the [www.cafepress.com/stitchandbitch1 "I Love Stitch & Bitch Cafe" products on cafepress], both of which were recently restored.
While I acknowledge Lyrl's comment that This Ain't No Boston Tea Party meets the criteria  of links to be considered in the external links guideline, the same guideline lists "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" under links normally to be avoided. In short, I don't believe that a blog post which has been described accurately above as "providing amateur legal analysis" written by an self-described PhD student who is identified by first name alone (and here I acknowledge that the copyright is claimed by one Yvonne Kao) cannot be considered to be written by a  "recognized authority". 
The cafepress link has been removed for an entirely different reason. Returning to the normally to be avoided under the external links guideline, we see: "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." The [www.cafepress.com/stitchandbitch1 link in question] is nothing but a sales link. Indeed, it presents no information whatsoever concerning the brand or the seller. With respect, I disagree with the reasoning provided in Ggarvin's edit summary. I know of no Wikipedia guideline or policy stating that such a link might be provided when  the products are not located on a seller's site. While I won't comment on whether one link is more valid than another, I know of nothing in Wikipedia that allows for inclusion based on this justification. Victoriagirl 22:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blog and cafepress links

message: I've again Stitch and Bitch London. As a Wikipedia article on a social knitting group, as described in the opening sentence, its inclusion is justified. Should other internal links be added and the "See also" list become unwieldy, pruning might be considered. As it is, one link is not too much.
The link to products for sale by Sew Fast Sew Easy through CafePress.com has again be removed for the reasons outlined above. In short, it violates Wikipedia's WP:EL policy. It have replaced the link with the Wikipedia article on CafePress.com. Victoriagirl 17:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stitch and Bitch London and CafePress.com

message: Please note that user:GGarvin is most likely Gregory Garvin, Marketing Manager of Sew Fast Sew Easy. I believe he is attempting to turn this article into an advertisement for his company and its products. RSV 20 November 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.228.109 (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everyone involved in this article is aware of that, and I hope Mr. Garvin has read WP:COI, but the articles he is currently editing seem to not violate any of Wikipedia's policies.  Everyone is welcome to offer criticism of the current form of the article here on the talk page, or to edit the article. LyrlTalk     C   00:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, I prefer one medium-sized article over numerous small or tiny articles.  I think it provides more accessible information to Wikipedia's readers.  So just on editorial grounds, I would disagree with creating a third article of limited content ("Stitch & Bitch Cafe") when there already exist two highly related articles ("Stitch 'n Bitch" and "Sew Fast Sew Easy"). LyrlTalk     C   22:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest