From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment

Forgive me for not being familiar with wiki conventions. User Springee feels that the reason for this company's rebranding is not relevant. I disagree, and I find their agenda to be transparent. This encyclopedia will be more useful to society if it provides information about why things happen. Sipos111 ( talk) 20:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

It's one thing to neutrally say why the company made this choice. It's quite another to use a recent, accusatory article to that end. The MF article is reasonable but the connection to the recent shooting isn't. Since you jointed today and have displayed WP:SPA behavior it's not surprising people wouldn't give your edits the benefit of the doubt. Springee ( talk) 22:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Ok. I actually see your point now. And I admit I was not behaving in a constructive manner yesterday. Thoughts about putting the mf article piece back in? Sipos111 ( talk) 15:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Go ahead and make some changes. Worst case we can revert. So long as the language and source are neutral I don't see any issue with the change. Infact it would be an improvement since currently the article is a stub that doesn't explain why the company wants to do this. Certainly issolating the stock from the swings associated with gun sales it part of it but I also got the feeling some of the change was because they want to do more things that aren't S&W branded. Springee ( talk) 17:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
If you don't mind, I'd rather you make whatever change you feel is appropriate. What I learned yesterday is that this is something I don't currently have the capacity to get involved with. Sipos111 ( talk) 18:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Based on what you have said today and our conversation here I think you do. You are engaged in the talk page in a perfectly level headed fashion. Yes, we might not agree with what ever changes you try but since we have a working dialog that's OK. I can try to get to the edits but it will be later (maybe tonight, not sure). This would be a good chance for you to try to learn the ropes after a bumpy start. I'm sure we will continue to disagree on some of this but so long as we are both editing in good faith I don't see a problem. Springee ( talk) 18:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Why no listing or links to the wikipedia pages and/or homepages of the 18 brands of American Outdoors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:8B1A:9500:BC39:B66B:8BD:CE86 ( talk) 09:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment

Forgive me for not being familiar with wiki conventions. User Springee feels that the reason for this company's rebranding is not relevant. I disagree, and I find their agenda to be transparent. This encyclopedia will be more useful to society if it provides information about why things happen. Sipos111 ( talk) 20:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

It's one thing to neutrally say why the company made this choice. It's quite another to use a recent, accusatory article to that end. The MF article is reasonable but the connection to the recent shooting isn't. Since you jointed today and have displayed WP:SPA behavior it's not surprising people wouldn't give your edits the benefit of the doubt. Springee ( talk) 22:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Ok. I actually see your point now. And I admit I was not behaving in a constructive manner yesterday. Thoughts about putting the mf article piece back in? Sipos111 ( talk) 15:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Go ahead and make some changes. Worst case we can revert. So long as the language and source are neutral I don't see any issue with the change. Infact it would be an improvement since currently the article is a stub that doesn't explain why the company wants to do this. Certainly issolating the stock from the swings associated with gun sales it part of it but I also got the feeling some of the change was because they want to do more things that aren't S&W branded. Springee ( talk) 17:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
If you don't mind, I'd rather you make whatever change you feel is appropriate. What I learned yesterday is that this is something I don't currently have the capacity to get involved with. Sipos111 ( talk) 18:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Based on what you have said today and our conversation here I think you do. You are engaged in the talk page in a perfectly level headed fashion. Yes, we might not agree with what ever changes you try but since we have a working dialog that's OK. I can try to get to the edits but it will be later (maybe tonight, not sure). This would be a good chance for you to try to learn the ropes after a bumpy start. I'm sure we will continue to disagree on some of this but so long as we are both editing in good faith I don't see a problem. Springee ( talk) 18:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Why no listing or links to the wikipedia pages and/or homepages of the 18 brands of American Outdoors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:8B1A:9500:BC39:B66B:8BD:CE86 ( talk) 09:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook