![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I urge the person who added the snide remarks to this page ("large software company", "great euphemism!") to read the NPOV page before changing any other articles. This article might be merged with the page on obsolescence.
This article has been turned into shit. It now says very little of value to a business strategist. I am taking it off the lists of business subjects until it becomes useful again. mydogategodshat 03:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's fine. I don't think an article needs to contain blatant NPOV violations to be of value to a business strategist or anyone else.
I get the impression that user:mydogategodshat feels some sense of ownership over this page. I get that feeling too, sometimes when I work hard on an article and then someone changes it in a way that I think is wrong. But I've come to the conclusion that any one should make his or her contributions and then back off for a while. If new contributions are really incorrect, another user will catch the errors and fix them. Things just get ugly when users 'care too much' about any particular page. My 2 c. ike9898 22:30, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Hello! I am not working for any company in their marketing department, and I just want to say: Thanks for the excellent article! Regards, Somebody Else.
I'm going to remove or modify that particular section header in the article. As it stands it seems like vandalism and/or a personal attack. Changed to ==Types of obsolescence == -- Tim Fowler 6:24 (UTC), 12 October 2006
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I urge the person who added the snide remarks to this page ("large software company", "great euphemism!") to read the NPOV page before changing any other articles. This article might be merged with the page on obsolescence.
This article has been turned into shit. It now says very little of value to a business strategist. I am taking it off the lists of business subjects until it becomes useful again. mydogategodshat 03:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's fine. I don't think an article needs to contain blatant NPOV violations to be of value to a business strategist or anyone else.
I get the impression that user:mydogategodshat feels some sense of ownership over this page. I get that feeling too, sometimes when I work hard on an article and then someone changes it in a way that I think is wrong. But I've come to the conclusion that any one should make his or her contributions and then back off for a while. If new contributions are really incorrect, another user will catch the errors and fix them. Things just get ugly when users 'care too much' about any particular page. My 2 c. ike9898 22:30, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Hello! I am not working for any company in their marketing department, and I just want to say: Thanks for the excellent article! Regards, Somebody Else.
I'm going to remove or modify that particular section header in the article. As it stands it seems like vandalism and/or a personal attack. Changed to ==Types of obsolescence == -- Tim Fowler 6:24 (UTC), 12 October 2006