Hello, I'm
Squinge. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Goodyear welt because they appeared to be promotional.
Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "
soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Squinge (
talk) 16:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to reinstate the contested claim that has been removed, please discuss it on the article talk page and gain a consensus for its reinstatement, and do not edit war to get it back in. There are other welted constructions in addition to the Goodyear welt, and it is blatantly false to claim they all have no functional use. Please be aware too that you have been caught trying to include promotional material in the article, and that won't look good if we need to escalate this to a dispute process. Squinge ( talk) 16:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I edited the page to add the name of the oldest and most respected Canadian shoe manufacturer that uses the Goodyear welt to make their shoes. The ones currently mentioned on the page were only US and UK manufacturers. Mathew Dack (a.k.a Dack's) shoes have been around since 1834. I fail to see why you would state that I am saying there is "no functional use" to the Goodyear welt. The posting of a link to the company's website isn't promotional, as there is a link to the websites of most of the other manufacturer's mentioned on the page. oban10
- I've replied at my talk page, because I was not aware you had said the same thing in two places. But I feel I must ask you straight - do you have any commercial connection with Dack's Shoes? Squinge ( talk) 17:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm just a shoe aficionado, who's been wearing Dack's shoes for 30 years. Oban10 ( talk) 17:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)oban10
- And it's pure coincidence that you reinstated a link added just a day previously by someone calling themselves User:Matthewdack? Squinge ( talk) 17:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That's correct. BTW, I'm not the one who inserted "Shoes with other types of construction may also have welts for finished appearance, but they generally serve little or no structural purpose". You should check your edits. I saw you deleted all references to companies manufacturing Goodyear welted shoes from the page. That is certainly very helpful to the reader... Oban10 ( talk) 17:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)oban10
- The "... for finished appearance, but they generally serve little or no structural purpose" claim was reinserted by you after I removed it for being blatantly false, and this is the proof! If you can't even remember what you did then I have little interest in talking any more to you. If you disagree with me, take it to the talk page and seek a consensus. Squinge ( talk) 17:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- PS: If you disagree with my removal of the list of makers (which I didn't think really added anything to an understanding of the topic as there are countless makers of Goodyear welted shoes around the world), then you are welcome to revert that and we can discuss that on the talk page. Squinge ( talk) 17:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You should really check the history more closely. I only added the words "Matthew Dack Footwear" and a reference to their website's mention of Goodyear welt. I did undo your subsequent edit, which must have included much more than your removing what I added. If you want to be the police, then you should investigate better. Oban10 ( talk) 17:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)oban10
Check this link https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Goodyear_welt&diff=prev&oldid=648337278 and tell me what you see 192.226.159.147 ( talk) 18:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)oban10
- There's no need to repeat everything in two places, and there's no point in continuing to talk at cross-purposes - I'd though it was clear that I was objecting to *two* changes you made, not just one. Any further discussion should be on the article talk page. By the way, I'd suggest you log in before posting further as you might not want to reveal your geographical location by exposing your IP address. Squinge ( talk) 18:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe you should apologize. I did make 2 changes: i) I inserted "Matthew Dack Footwear", and ii) I added a reference to their website. I did not make the 3rd change you mention, i.e. I did not add "... for finished appearance, but they generally serve little or no structural purpose". I believe the link I sent you does prove it. Cheers ! Oban10 ( talk) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)oban10
Hello, I'm
Squinge. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of
your recent contributions to
Goodyear welt because they appeared to be promotional.
Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "
soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Squinge (
talk) 16:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to reinstate the contested claim that has been removed, please discuss it on the article talk page and gain a consensus for its reinstatement, and do not edit war to get it back in. There are other welted constructions in addition to the Goodyear welt, and it is blatantly false to claim they all have no functional use. Please be aware too that you have been caught trying to include promotional material in the article, and that won't look good if we need to escalate this to a dispute process. Squinge ( talk) 16:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I edited the page to add the name of the oldest and most respected Canadian shoe manufacturer that uses the Goodyear welt to make their shoes. The ones currently mentioned on the page were only US and UK manufacturers. Mathew Dack (a.k.a Dack's) shoes have been around since 1834. I fail to see why you would state that I am saying there is "no functional use" to the Goodyear welt. The posting of a link to the company's website isn't promotional, as there is a link to the websites of most of the other manufacturer's mentioned on the page. oban10
- I've replied at my talk page, because I was not aware you had said the same thing in two places. But I feel I must ask you straight - do you have any commercial connection with Dack's Shoes? Squinge ( talk) 17:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm just a shoe aficionado, who's been wearing Dack's shoes for 30 years. Oban10 ( talk) 17:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)oban10
- And it's pure coincidence that you reinstated a link added just a day previously by someone calling themselves User:Matthewdack? Squinge ( talk) 17:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That's correct. BTW, I'm not the one who inserted "Shoes with other types of construction may also have welts for finished appearance, but they generally serve little or no structural purpose". You should check your edits. I saw you deleted all references to companies manufacturing Goodyear welted shoes from the page. That is certainly very helpful to the reader... Oban10 ( talk) 17:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)oban10
- The "... for finished appearance, but they generally serve little or no structural purpose" claim was reinserted by you after I removed it for being blatantly false, and this is the proof! If you can't even remember what you did then I have little interest in talking any more to you. If you disagree with me, take it to the talk page and seek a consensus. Squinge ( talk) 17:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- PS: If you disagree with my removal of the list of makers (which I didn't think really added anything to an understanding of the topic as there are countless makers of Goodyear welted shoes around the world), then you are welcome to revert that and we can discuss that on the talk page. Squinge ( talk) 17:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
You should really check the history more closely. I only added the words "Matthew Dack Footwear" and a reference to their website's mention of Goodyear welt. I did undo your subsequent edit, which must have included much more than your removing what I added. If you want to be the police, then you should investigate better. Oban10 ( talk) 17:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)oban10
Check this link https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Goodyear_welt&diff=prev&oldid=648337278 and tell me what you see 192.226.159.147 ( talk) 18:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)oban10
- There's no need to repeat everything in two places, and there's no point in continuing to talk at cross-purposes - I'd though it was clear that I was objecting to *two* changes you made, not just one. Any further discussion should be on the article talk page. By the way, I'd suggest you log in before posting further as you might not want to reveal your geographical location by exposing your IP address. Squinge ( talk) 18:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe you should apologize. I did make 2 changes: i) I inserted "Matthew Dack Footwear", and ii) I added a reference to their website. I did not make the 3rd change you mention, i.e. I did not add "... for finished appearance, but they generally serve little or no structural purpose". I believe the link I sent you does prove it. Cheers ! Oban10 ( talk) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)oban10