Talk:Sweetest Day/Archive 4

message: I'm doing some general cleanup here to tighten up the article per the FA guidelines.  My hope is to eventually get this into shape to be a FA or at least a GA considering the fact that several news stories were written around Sweetest Day and they appear to have used this article as a starting point.--Isotope23 18:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything published in 1922 is long out of copyright if it ever was copyrighted in the first place.  Before 1977 nothing was copyrighted unless it had a copyright notice and it was fairly uncommon to copyright ordinary news articles.  Even if it was copyrighted, the copyright expired in 28 years unless renewed during the last of those years, and most copyrights were not renewed.  Even if it was renewed, it expired once and for all 56 years from the original copyright notice, until the law changed in 1978. 67.117.130.181 15:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good to know... thanks.  I knew anything prior to '22 is PD, but I wasn't sure what the law was on renewing a copyright.--Isotope23 16:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General cleanup

message: There is such an obvious effort to suppress and manage information about Sweetest Day on this page it is turning Wikipedia into a joke. Miracleimpulse 18:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suppression and management of information

message: There is every reason to believe that anonymous industry spin doctors are editing the Sweetest Day page here at Wikipedia and participating in this discussion. For more than a year now there has been an ongoing discussion on the Yahoo American Greetings message board about Sweetest Day. Currently the thread has 263 messages in it. Now check out this Yahoo profile. This individual posts regularly on the Yahoo American Greetings message board under various screen names, and it is my belief that this individual is also a participant or even several participants in this ongoing discussion about Sweetest Day here at Wikipedia. Until a few days ago, the photo on anonymous_spin_doctor's Yahoo profile was this image of 4 Sweetest Day Founders. I believe they decided to swap the image for the sexy lady when they realized I might link this talk page with the American Greetings message board to make my point about spin doctors operating on Wikipedia. One way to resolve this problem is for the editors who care enough about the Sweetest Day article to make their identities public as I have. Or perhaps Wikipedia can investigate the issue and determine who is a spin doctor or possible sock puppet. It is never my intention to make a personal attack on anyone here at Wikipedia. However, I would be remiss in my responsibility as a Wikipedian if I did not bring my concerns about this issue to the attention of other Wikipedia editors. Be aware: The spin doctors are here. And their purpose is to manage and suppress information about this topic in order to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool in the promotion of Sweetest Day. Miracleimpulse 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said "This individual posts regularly on the Yahoo American Greetings message board under various screen names" - what is your evidence, and how does that relate to any editor here? If you are concerned that a particular user has a conflict of interest, you can try to present your evidence at WP:CHECK (but they seem pretty strict about not doing fishing expeditions.)  But, I'm curious as to your statement that you have made your identity public, since there is no such revelation on your empty user page. Not a dog 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He thinks that because he's given his real name on several occasions (Robb Thomas) that that's somehow full disclosure, thus anyone who doesn't also give their full name is in cahoots with the greeting card industry. It appears that Mr. Thomas is also a creator of greeting cards, or at least he has quite a collection on his website, which was linked to on one of the archive talk pages. --75.117.248.108 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems he's also created a gallery of all those webcam images of old newspaper stories on the origin of Sweetest Day . Not a dog 04:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (Oh, and jsut as a meta-comment: the fact there are 263 posts to a Yahoo Group dedicated "Sweetest Fraud" makes me chuckle a bit.) Not a dog 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, that profile you linked to indicates the last change was in August, so unless they don't count changing photos as a "change" I'm confused as to your claim that the picture was just changed a few days ago (and what it is supposed to insinuate anyway). Plus, the image you claim was associated with that profile (which you just uploaded to WP ) is obviously taken at the same time and with the same camera as the other images you personally created and uploaded to wikipedia (ie, ). So, how did this Yahoo person (who you claim used to have that photo on their profile) gain access to that image, especially since it doesn't match precisely to the other one's you've uploaded? I'm very confused here. Please help me understand. Not a dog 00:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Miracleimpulse are you seriously suggesting that some individual created a Wikipedia account (or multiple accounts), edited numerous articles, all the while waiting for you to come here and edit the Sweetest Day article, so they could launch into a concerted effort of sockpuppeting to thwart your edits here?  That is a rather machiavellian prospect...--Isotope23 01:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fanatics always seem to think that the fact that other editors don't accept all of their obsessive-compulsive original research proves that they're all on the payroll of their arch enemies and part of a massive conspiracy to suppress The Truth. *Dan T.* 04:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous industry spin doctors on Wikipedia

message: Would someone please remove all statements sourced to advertising websites, including Retail Confectioners International and The Romantic.com. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a free advertising website. Miracleimpulse 23:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The purpose of both websites is to sell products for Sweetest Day. None of the statements on the websites are sourced in any way. Are you saying we need lies in the Sweetest Day article to balance the truth? Not very encyclopedic. Miracleimpulse 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wikipedia is not in the position to call the RCI quote a "lie" without a source directly saying that.  As for the external links, I've been surfing around TheRomantic.com, and besides the awful web design, they do sell lots of stuff, and link to other people who sell stuff.  They seem a bit commericial to stay in External Links, and that site isn't used to cite anything in the article.  I'm strongly considering removing it.  The link to RCI should stay, though; it is used to cite the "official" story, which should stay in the article, even if you think it is full of dirty lies. --Transfinite 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The RCI quote should stay.  I've removed theromantic.com and replaced it with the American Greetings link that was previously in External links.  I also removed the 2 extraneous images that are not directly pertinent to the article.  These should be in a Wikicommons Gallery.  By the way, the Sweetest Day committee image is better than the one that was there before.--Isotope23 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The statements about Sweetest Day on the websites of American Greetings, Hallmark and Retail Confectioners International are carefully written highly deceptive verisimilitudes created to help sell Sweetest Day products. These statements are not sourced on any of the three websites because they cannot be sourced: they are deceptive statements created by marketing/advertising departments in order to sell products. As blatant and highly deceptive promotional statements, they should not be included in any encyclopedia article (even under external links) unless identified as such. Oh and Transfinite, I never said the statements were "dirty lies." They are the cleanest lies money can buy. Miracleimpulse 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of advertising statements and sources 

message: * Isotope, "old folks" like Vera Sissons and newsboys like "Jimmy" are already mentioned in the article, and their role (they were used as promotional tools) in the creation of Sweetest Day should be further detailed in the article. You guys better brace yourselves: there are a lot more digital scans on the way...this will ultimately become a factual article about Sweetest Day. Miracleimpulse 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital scan images 

message: Not a dog, I changed "created" to "planned" because the Cleveland Plains Dealer article never credits those 12 men with creation of the day, just planning and executing it the 1921 Observance.  In fact, Schmidt in his book Consumer Rites: The Buying and Selling of American Holidays traces the observance back to 1910, which would suggest the "true" creator(s) still have not been found if Schmidt is correct and at this juncture I think it is still original research & an inference to call those men the creators as no reliable sources have referred to them as such.--Isotope23 19:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That adjustment to my wording seems to make sense. THanks. Not a dog 19:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adjusted image wording

message: It is apparent to me that meisterchef is a sockpuppet of miracleimpulse.  As evidence, for example, note that each of the points set forth by meisterchef are simply inversions of the same old rants that miracleimpulse has been reiterating over the past six months.  It may be advisable to request a sysop to confirm whether this is indeed the case (perhaps by examining IP records, web access logs and timestamps); and, if so, to take appropriate measures to prevent further disruption by the puppeteer. —Ryanaxp 16:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I would add that this exact same message was posted to WP:ANI by   . This IP's only other edit , which was to correct a spelling error by , who's only edit was also in support of Miracleimpulse. Not sure if these are socks, but Miracleimpulse does have a known history of using multiple account on other online forums (see unanswered concern expressed at User talk:Miracleimpulse#Multiple accounts?) Not a dog 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's all sort of a moot point because meisterchef was indef blocked and his unblock request denied.--Isotope23 16:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspicion of sockpuppetry re: meisterchef / miracleimpulse

message: I noticed that Miracleimpulse, created a Commons category, so I did the rest of the work and created a gallery for all the extraneous images.  It's linked in the aritcle now.--Isotope23 17:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery