Talk:Modernista!/Archives/2012

Does this page violate Wikipedia policy?

THIS IS BLATANT ADVERTISING! PLEASE SOMEONE DELETE THIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.33.52 (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS BLATANT ADVERTISING! PLEASE SOMEONE DELETE THIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.5.63.181 (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it: They certainly edit this page themselves. Is this allowed on Wikipedia? The whole "Clients" and "History" sections aren't necessary here, are they? This really should be on their website, not on Wikipedia. Oh wait, their website...

Modernista is using this article as the modernista.com homepage. This breaks Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not your web host ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST ) --70.44.78.154 (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please delete this now? Or radically shorten it? Or suggest it for deletion and discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.101.205 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to remove the "Clients" and "History" sections, but Timtastic reverted my edits right away. In my opinion those categories are unencyclopedic content. I get the feeling that Timtastic is working for Modernista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.78.154 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have that feeling as well. Except for when I click on his username it doesn't exist anymore. Can someone with higher admin power look at this, please!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.6.185 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

At least two instances of entries regarding the approach and its potential violations of Wikipedia policy have been deleted from the article.--Fatherofhistory.fatheroflies (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

— Fatherofhistory.fatheroflies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix_talk 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Self-references are to be avoided in an encyclopedia, and as a publicly editable site, Wikipedia is not generally an appropriate source for citation. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

the entry includes reference to their usage of redirects to Wikipedia and hence requires disclosure to the public about the full story. Don't try and hide behind some lame excuse of self-reference. Fatherofhistory.fatheroflies (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you people taking this so personally. Its a Wiki, not your mom. Christ. Let it go. You people are constantly asking to violate Wikipedia's policies to remove or spout your personal opinion in this article. Seriously, most of you are personally insulted by this; what brought it on? Nothing wrong was done here. They aren't using Wikipedia as their 'website', and you would know that if you just opened the damn link to their website instead of crying. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Added category

I have categorized this page as requested by Category needed. If anyone has a more accurate category for this article, please feel free to add in the necessary details. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this entry represent an appropriate use of wikipedia? The company is wrapping wikipedia in a div, and using it for their homepage...

see: http://www.modernista.com/7/

209.120.146.248 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This breaks at least one part of the Wikipedia policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST

Encyclopedic Content

Please review common practices and structures of other advertising agency articles when deciding if the content of this page is encyclopedic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_advertising_agencies I chose not to list sources for every single history entry as AdWeek.com was the source for all. Timtastic (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have updated this article and rewritten it to be neutral. I have tried to exclude both overly positive and overly negative statements, and I have updated the references. I have also added numerous internal links. PS - The Modernista "siteless site" no longer uses Wikipedia as a landing page. It continues to use social sites like Facebook and Flickr as landing pages, but not Wikipedia. Please comment - THANKS. 63.116.202.130 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Waldo Stanton 6/12/2010

Have I addressed the concerns about encyclopedic content and internal linking? If so, can we remove the notes at the top of this article? Thanks much, 63.116.202.130 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Waldo Stanton 7/14/10

I have updated the page up to September 2010. I am striving for objectivity - I hope I've addressed any past concerns about encyclopedic content. If so, can we remove the note at the top of this article? WaldoStanton (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Waldo Stanton 9/28/10

Sourcing

This article is completely unsourced. The link to their website just sends you back to the Wikipedia article, with their own links in the upper left hand corner. Corvus cornix_talk 17:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It also seems to be a vanity entry, especially considering that it's already been deleted recently and they are using this page as a base for their website. AboveDust (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Attempting to add sources, but your BOT keeps reverting my edits. What gives? 68.236.98.2 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried adding sources as well and was reverted by a bot. There are some inaccurate references up there. 24.34.187.178 (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to website

The company's website only links back to this article. That doesn't seem like a valid external link, to me. Could we discuss this? Corvus cornix_talk 03:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The website is designed to display the referring site when linked. Try clicking on ther first link at [1] 24.34.187.178 (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As above, it appears that the first thing you see is whatever the referring site was. If you click into the links, they direct off to other sites - Flickr hosts their work portfolio, for example. The company appears to be trying to point out that they know Web 2.0 by immersing themselves in it. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you type in the URL from a blank page, it loads the Wikipedia page with their popup thing in the left corner. It is the default starting point. AboveDust (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is showing Wikipedia in a frame against the rules? 24.34.187.178 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Vanity pages are. The "history" section does not even provide history, but is an attempt to try to use sources to make this page seem relevant. AboveDust (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The page didn't exist until yesterday. You can't expect a full history to be added in a day. 24.34.187.178 (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The page did exist and was deleted. AboveDust (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides, what is irrelevant about the advertising agency that handles the Cadillac and HUMMER accounts? I've seen far more obscure entries thrive on Wikipedia. 24.34.187.178 (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This agency is not obscure in the least — it's actually quite notable in its industry. We should be careful about deleting it again without due process. If we need sources that aren't self-referential, there's always www.archive.org. tiZom_(2¢) 06:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The question here is not the deletion of the article, it's whether or not it's appropriate to include an external link to a site which just redirects back to this article. Corvus cornix_talk 18:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears to effectively be a statement by the agency in having their website designed to point you back to the public web for information. Including the domain under external links would seem okay to me with a parenthetical explanation of what it does. --Michael Snow (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The current comment on the external link to their website satisfies my concerns. Corvus cornix_talk 19:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of Logo

The logo (in two formats) has been uploaded and given the clearly false claim that it is "ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." Given that there was a choice over font, colour, kerning, framing, etc. and far simpler logos have been determined by courts to be copyrightable then this appears to need either or both of a revised permission status or to be deleted (plus the original uploaders - on en and commons reprimanded for misusing status templates) --AlisonW (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No. There is not enough original artistic authorship in this logo to warrant copyright (in the U.S., at least). Please see U.S. Copyright Code, § 1302, paragraphs 2 and 3. Color, kerning, framing, etc. are considered insignificant details, and therefore this image is absolutely PD-ineligible. On the deletion request page, I've asked that you expand on your examples of simpler logos that were granted copyright.

Additionally, please see Category:Company logos. If you were in fact correct in this matter, then you would have a good deal more "reprimanding" to do. tiZom_(2¢) 03:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please Respect Wikipedia

If you people are going to continually vandalize the article because you think its somehow "Wikimorally" wrong you are holding a double standard. You're violating Wikipedia's rules to support others. Please do not vandalize the article. Do not leave comments to Modernista! employees within the article. This is not your battle. If you have something relating to the article that needs to be discussed, please use the talk page. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We are, but this doesn't change a thing. The article is still up and it is still supported by questionable users and bots and it is still just advertising for a company that uses Wikipedia as their webhost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.5.2.100 (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the 'Wikipedia is not your webhost' article carefully I think you'll see that it is at best a grey area. If they are not editing the page themselves, I think this company has the case to make that they are using Wikipedia as Wikipedia, not as a webhost. After all, they clearly already have a webhost. Jill.bernbach (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk to Tim

Hi everyone. My name is Tim. I made the Modernista! website.[2] I realize we've stirred up a lot of negative sentiment by linking to our Wikipedia page from our own website. I can understand why people might get angry, but I want to tell you my side of the story and hopefully convince you that Modernista! is not an evil company intent on the destruction of the people's encyclopedia. Please visit my talk page if you want to discuss anything relating to the M! website. TimBlount (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Need to make it very clear that I have not materially contributed to the current Modernista! entry . I only made the website. Our company has been explicitly instructed to refrain from editing the site. TimBlount (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's all nice and dandy, but could you please either change your website or remove this article now, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.5.5.152 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Considering my comments above - I don't think the COI label from User:OrangeMike is deserved here. Could anyone let me know what needs to be cleaned up? TimBlount (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon careful examination of the edit history, I find no solid evidence of COI edits here, and am removing the tag. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have asked this company to stop hotlinking and framing

Upon requests from members of the community, and in discussion with Florence Devouard, I contacted this company to kindly ask them to stop hotlinking and framing our site. They are doing so here in a manner which imposes their logo over ours, and traps the user inside a frame while surfing our site. (Update: to fully understand what is going on just enter their url www.modernista.com into your web browser: their "home page" is this article, inside a javascript frame thing that obscures our logo with theirs and traps the surfer into their frame while surfing our site.)

I believe that what they are doing is disrespectful to our community, and at cross-purposes with what we are trying to accomplish with Wikipedia. To be clear: Wikipedia does not exist to serve as the homepage of their website. I tried to work with them quietly, but they have simply refused my requests. (Or, to be more accurate, they have ignored my requests.)

It seems clear to me that they are likely to lose a lot of business: who would hire an ad agency in a "web 2.0" capacity with so little understanding of how communities work?

I recommend that a template be placed at the top of the page with a warning to the user explaining the situation, including the fact that we have asked them to stop and they have not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

sidebar - re "hire an ad agency ... with so little understanding" add "who also think that using l33tspeak in the little box they show is somehow 'with it' and up to date." --AlisonW (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy April fools to you as well :) 195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A template?

I recommend that something like this be added to the page:

Edited.

Though I think we really need to say "no", if necessary by prevention. Wikipedia is open to anyone to cite as praise or as they like. It's the subversion of an encyclopedia to look like it caters to commercial services, that is so damaging. Much better to stop the matter than template it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative: Write to them (email). Note that we have watched and appreciated their attempts to be fair and to work with us, and we have watched the activity to assess its effect. We have come to the conclusion it is not compatible, but despite asking it has not stopped. On <date> we will be updating our site JS to prevent such usage. We felt as you tried to be communicative to us, we would like to be fair back, and give you a weeks notice to take alternative measures, and formal notice that you are requested not to modify or draw upon and dilute our branding in future either this way or in other ways. Yours truly.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that having a frame-out might be the upshot of all this, and clearly if Jimbo has talked to them the main avenues for resolving this issue are over. I've copied the template to a subpage so that it can be easier transcluded and also secured if required. --AlisonW (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked it on a different machine and note they have added an additional information box - which overlays the tabs on the default css. They also appear to be caching the article and this page to some extent as the template just added does not appear on their 'version'. --AlisonW (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to go ahead with frame-busting them, the following Javascript works (just tested in my monobook):

if ( top != self && wgTitle == 'Modernista!' ) {
   top.location.href = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernista!";
}

If Self and top aren't the same and the title is modernista! then redirect it to the current Modernista! article. Although, I'd be up for linking to the the "don't hotlink" page, but that's just me. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What linking to our page on them means is, users who visit us from their site, leave their site and enter the more general world of the internet. That more than any request page will deter this usage.

The other view is, their users have done nothing wrong". If we can direct them to a specific explantory page, maybe we can explain what is up and give them a choice to return to Modernista or visit Wikipedia. In some ways that's best. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy to see that as a general 'stop hotlinking' frameout. Re "return to Modernista or visit Wikipedia" the question would be what site/page *is* a return to Modernista ? --AlisonW (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem remains that until they change their site, we either do nothing or break them out. If you redirect them back to their site, it's just a loop. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article includes a link to their old website, which still exists. We could redirect people to that. Hut 8.5 12:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL I can't believe you guys, all their site does is use the last website you visited as their background... hahaha this talk page is definitly high on the fun scale /claps all around 195.216.82.210 (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

PBJ Time

www.modernista.com now redirects to the Peanut Butter Jelly Time video? Who did that? Probably one of the worst solutions we could come up with to this problem. (Is it even a problem? I'm still not fully convinced...) tiZom_(2¢) 02:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(On second thought, was this even our doing? Sometimes it links to a French political site. Very odd at any rate...) tiZom_(2¢) 02:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not our doing, and what they are trying to infer by their choice of links I've no idea. --AlisonW (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It was hamster dance yesterday for awhile. Just a publicity stunt. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think that was a "publicity stunt" I think it was done as a celebration of April fool's day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DustyjXXX (talk • contribs) 01:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally

If a link to their site is clicked from anywhere else, it uses that site as their "background" - this article is only the default. Note for example that if you click the link above it uses this talk page rather than the article --Random832 (contribs) 04:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Template nominated for deletion

Please see: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Modernista!/Notice. Thank you. Lawrence § t/e 18:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the template from the article, it ought not be in article space. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So? What are we doing now? 217.186.1.33 (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Jimbo Wales#MfD of disclaimer at Modernista!. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's nice and all but when will it stop now? They still frame Wikipedia on their website. 217.186.2.12 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange... I click a link to Modernista on this talk page, and the background it uses is the article (not this talk page). Then I tried Google and ClickZ, and both had the article as the background. I asked my friend to test by visiting Google, her background is the Google results page. Then I asked her to try the ClickZ, and she got the ClickZ page as the background. - Keithorz (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have referers disabled? --Random832 (contribs) 15:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)