User talk:Jim at WRB/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello Jim at WRB/Archive 1 and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Български | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Lietuvių | 한국어 | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Suomi | Svenska | Türkçe | 简体中文 | The main embassy page

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Account Block

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jim at WRB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

Jim at WRB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

To bring the username into compliance with Wikipedia policy, which states "usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as 'Mark at WidgetsUSA', 'Jack Smith at the XY Foundation', 'WidgetFan87', etc"[1] Wrbinc (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

You were unblocked, but looks like Missvain forgot to update this template. Allowing username change to requested username. Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. only (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are a few key questions:

• Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
• Do you understand conflict of interest?
• Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no intention, nor have I ever authorized any person or entity, to violate any principal or policy of Wikipedia. I authorized my company to coordinate with you to fix encyclopedic content and respond to the demands made of us by Wikipedia through this account (See Talk:Hammerschlagen). In the past, myself, my corporation's legal representation, and Hammer-Schlagen employees monitored this account: this will no longer be the case as I, Jim Martin, the CEO of Hammer-Schlagen, will be the only entity to use this account.

• I understand that Wikipedia is making an attempt to promote encyclopedic content. Please be advised that Wikipedia is propagating false and misleading information to the public at Hammerschlagen; we believe that you are therein violating our state and federal intellectual property rights by knowingly continuing to dilute our federally recognized brand. Content on Hammerschlagen violates Wikipedia policy.
• I understand the policy of conflicts of interest. This account was not created to promote or otherwise advertise our company.
• I understand that to be considered encyclopedic, the subject must be notable. Be advised that the notations provided on Hammerschlagen clearly and explicitly reference myself (personally) and the company of which I am an officer. Please also note that false and misleading claims made by you (which we request you change) are not notable.

This account was created to take action at the request of Wikipedia to respond to demands made of us by Wikipedia and under the expressed direction of Wikipedia. Be advised that I am directing our company to make every attempt possible to resolve what we believe is a violation of our legal rights within your system of governance in good-faith and under your direction in an attempt to avoid ligation. When we attempt to do as you ask, you prevent us from acting: be advised that we are beginning to interrupt the actions of Wikipedia as a knowing and willing attempt to continue to cause damage to not only our corporation but to our clients and licensees. The continued suggestion that I have directed or taken any action to spite or otherwise demean Wikipedia in my capacity as a natural person, shareholder, officer, and/or employee of Hammer-Schlagen is extremely offensive.

Please advise how to proceed in order to resolve your wrong-doings as iterated on Talk:Hammerschlagen

Wrbinc (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Coffee -- Please be further advised that at no time have we "been promoting" any "company, group or product." Instead, I, Jim Martin the CEO of Hammer-Schalgen, came to know of the Hammerschlagen page on Wikipedia, and after reading it, found false and misleading information. Upon contacting Wikipedia, I was told to create an account and make the statements found on Talk:Hammerschlagen. I was told that the false and misleading information would be corrected if true and correct information was provided. To date, the only actions that have been taken by Wikipedia are barring us--the subject of the Hammerschlagen page--from the conversation and making edits to the Hammerschlagen page to further dilute our brand. If the advisements that Hammer-Schlagen has been given by Wikipedia is not the proper way to act, then please give proper advisement so that Wikipedia provides true and correct encyclopedic content on the Hammerschlagen page. 00:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Missvain -- I am unable to respond to the comments left by @CorporateM on Talk:Hammerschlagen, but your account block is preventing me from doing so. Please lift the block so I may proceed with what is being asked of me. I am willing to use the ridiculously long username of James Martin, CEO of Hammer-Schalgen to comply with your demands or the current username of Wrbinc that was created at the direction of Wikipedia. Please advise on which username you would like me to use, or if neither is acceptable to you, the username which you deem necessary and proper to continue with the matters at hand.

@Missvain -- I have been asked to provide information to MelanieN on Talk:Hammerschlagen, and am unable to do so as you have blocked me. As shown by my activity, I am acting as directed; if there is any violation (such as this username tiff), I have shown that I will take action to the best of my ability to comply with the demands made by Wikipedia policy. (Please excuse me as there are so many rules here that I am having trouble learning them all: any violations are unintentional as I am just following instruction.) As seen above, a request to change the account name to Jim at WRB has been made to conform to policy. What else needs to be done to unblock this account so that the matters at hand can be continued? Or, do you propose a different remedy? Wrbinc (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Without prejudice

I would advise you to read WP:NLT. I haven't read through everything that's going on here and have no intention in getting involved with it, but the word 'litigation' caught my eye, so I thought it only fair to bring this policy to your attention. Peridon (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @Peridon, for the resource. Hammer-Schlagen has been doing its best to try to resolve the dilution to our brand by Wikipedia by: bringing it to Wikipedia's attention; seek Wikipedia's counsel on how to remedy the false and misleading information presented; and provide Wikipedia with a resource where true and correct information is published. I have been told that we should not remove false and misleading information from the Hammerschlagen page directly, but instead that Wikipedia will do so for us if we provide them with true and correct information, which we have. Relying on this warranty and representation, I am hopeful that Wikipedia would follow thru with its promise to remove the false and misleading information we believe is causing dilution to our brand.

Over the past several hours, I learned how to view and link to the history of a page. I see that someone tried to correct a portion of the false and misleading information propagated by Wikipedia, but it was removed by @Jac16888 7 minutes after the edit for the reason of a "rv promotional edits": Hammerschlagen (16 January 2015). I am also learning that Wikipedia is continuing to modify information to further dilute the Hammer-Schlagen brand after being informed of the true and correct information that was provided to @ukexpat and @CorporateM. I have not heard of any further communication by Wikipedia after our repeated attempts to contact by electronic means and the telephone. With this account block by @Missvain, I am becoming vary wary in the belief that Wikipedia's motives are pure. I, for one, am not excited by the thought that Wikipedia may be knowingly and willingly causing the intentional dilution to Hammer-Schlagen's brand. Though it seems that Hammer-Schlagen is continuing to be the object of Wikipedia's clear and deliberate spite, I am still hopeful that Wikipedia will make good on the promises it has made.

Is Hammer-Schlagen not going about this the correct way? We have done what is asked of us, but there have been no results. Instead, Wikipedia is taking action to bar us--the subject of the Hammerschlagen page--from the conversation and knowingly remove true information in a willing attempt to cause further dilution by publishing clearly erroneous information. What can be done to inject actual encyclopedic content into the Hammerschlagen page and remove the falsehoods?

Wrbinc (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. You were being blocked because of non-compliance with a policy on user names. Not to stop you from getting a perceived problem from being sorted. You don't have to use your full name and title - but if you do, I'd advise checking the spelling... You can call yourself 'Herbert the Aardvark' or 'Fred Plong' - anything available that doesn't appear to represent ab organisation (or a position - 'Fred at BloggsCo' is OK, but 'BloggsCo' and 'PR at Bloggsco' aren't). I don't usually get involved with content dispute - spam, hoax, copyvio and notability are more my area. However, on a quick delve I can see little (if anything) reliable on Google to show that this is a traditional German game. There is no article about hammerschlagen or hammer-schlagen on the German Wikipedia, and nor has there been. I can see no German sources on Google. Equally, I can see little as far as I have gone there to prove the claims of your company, but that will be easier to sort out. My advice is to cool down, as formal notices and mentions of litigation tend to get people on the defensive. I'll ask two friends to have a look in, as I suspect that there could be misinformation in the article. There's definitely unsourced information there that needs either sourcing or removal, as I see it. @MelanieN: and @Ritchie333: - a nice kettle of fish here. If you've got time, an uninvolved opinion would be very welcome. Peridon (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about this, Peridon; I don't speak corporate-speak. 0;-D Mr. Martin, it would help a whole lot if you could get off your legalistic high horse, and stop using terms like "knowingly and willingly," "relying on this warranty and representation," etc. Can we just talk together like normal people? That would help a lot. None of us here is a lawyer (as far as I know), or involved with your industry (as far as I know). Nobody is trying to "dilute your brand". We are simply volunteers who try to keep Wikipedia clean and accurate. As Peridon said: we need to know exactly what it is you are so upset about. I'm not sure how far into the weeds I want to get here, but from a quick look at the article talk page, it looks as if you dispute the accuracy of some of the things said in the article. If they are sourced to a reliable source, they will likely stay even if you don't like them. If they are NOT sourced to a reliable source, we can and should remove them. I'll go to the article and see if I can make any sense out of your post there (it's what we call a "wall of text"). I'll leave the question of your block, unblock, new name, etc. for Peridon or Missvain to work out with you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrbinc (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC):::@MelanieN. Please excuse me for my formalities, but this situation has degraded very much since my first contact in early January dispite my efforts to speak like a normal person. I am trying to be as clear as I can. Yes, I do dispute the acuracy of things in the article: we (and our licensees) have begun hearing the false and misleading information published on Wikipedia by the pubilc. We did not know where it was coming from until my first contact with you (because relied upon Wikipedia's delivery of the information). It would be nice if Wikipedia could take the same action to educate the public of true and correct information in the same way as it has misinformed the public by providing false and misleading information. (As for refrences to the public record, you can find them on <http://www.hammerschlagen.com/about_us/the_brand/>.) Wrbinc (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, well, for starters, I found that there is no source for the claim about a pre-existing German game, so I removed it. I am thinking about how to rewrite the history section. In a quick look at the article I think the "rules" section needs to be eliminated or greatly shortened and paraphrased, per WP:NOTHOWTO. But looking at the article I have another, broader concern: whether this subject ought to have an article here at all. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and it has to have standards about what kind of subjects get included here. The standard is called WP:Notability and is defined by the WP:General notability guideline. That requires significant coverage about the subject by independent reliable sources. Not the company's website; it's not independent. Not social media, same problem. Not people's blogs: not reliable. Right now the article does not seem to cite any independent reliable sources. If we can't find and add some, the article should be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm going on a search for sources now. If I find some, I will add them. If not, I will wait for reaction here before proceeding. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN. In regards to sourcing, Wikipedia cites the owners of other brands as authority. To suggest that other brand owners may be cited as authoritative to their brand, but we may not be cited as an authority of our own self is quite silly. To name a few: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser#cite_note-18>, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser#cite_note-25>, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Lite#cite_note-abv-1>, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Lite#cite_note-2>, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A4germeister#cite_note-2>, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A4germeister#cite_note-12>. Furthermore, it is clear that the public has a desire to know about our brand as the article has existed for several years (I think): provided information is sourced to a reliable source, there is no reason why information cannot "stay up." If you do find that Hammerschlagen should be removed because it is commercial promotion, I would respectfully request that all commercial brands be removed from Wikipedia, like Budweiser, Miller_Lite, Jagermeister. Wrbinc (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A quick search[1] finds lots of passing mentions in the media, but no significant coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to spend whatever time I can to provide sourcing on Talk:Hammerschlagen for your review. For clarity in this record, I would like to propose addressing one issue at a time on Talk:Hammerschlagen (not do the editing myself as I have a CoI). Please know that I do not want an exclusive authority to edit the page; I do not want to be the supreme authority on what is or is not published hereon; and I definitely do not want to be the one who speaks for your community. With that said, I do want to stop the false and misleading information that is published on Wikipedia from continuing to be propagated into the public as its existence is causing damage to our brand and forcing us to take action to educate the public in multiple states. Wrbinc (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Peridon. In regards to the username, would Jim at WRB be alright? In regards to this being a traditional german game, you are correct in that is not. WRB, Inc. of Minnesota (and its predecessors) is the source and origin of Hammer-Schlagen and its brand. Wrbinc (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A separate question for Mr. Martin: You stated, in your post at the article talk page, that you were responding to a written request from Wikipedia. Could you tell us what that request was and who it came from? Depending on what that backstory is, it may be that other people, or even the Wikimedia Foundation itself, need to be involved in this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. The request came from ukexpat to make a notice on the talk page about Wikipedia's dissemination of untruths. A discussion on this can be found on Notice By Hammer-Schlagen. Wrbinc (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that. The person who sent you the email is another volunteer, like Peridon and myself. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is no real central authority here. The Arbitration Committee is about the nearest thing we have at Wikipedia. Over the top, there is the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the encyclopaedias and gets in the way in technical matters at times (and battles get fought...). They have the paid staff (just a handful) who can at times issue decrees through their (WMF) accounts. They mostly edit as volunteers as well on their ordinary accounts. One thing to get straight is that 'Wikipedia' is not officially disseminating untruths. As an open edit encyclopaedia, we do get idiots who post hoaxes and advertising. On big, well visited articles, this gets spotted almost instantly, but other things can go on for years if no-one goes there. (We even have a collection of the longest running hoaxes - I deleted one yesterday and then spent some time reviving it and getting it into the collection. It was found by an editor who seems to have a team and an algorithm for finding these things. I'm looking forward to their next discovery...) Your choice of name looks OK, so if you will just humour me by saying that you're not planning legal action, you can be unblocked for a name change. (We do worry about legal threats - I'm sure you wouldn't feel happy doing business with someone who was suing you...) I'll put the new choice into the request above. Peridon (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Peridon for the explanation. At this time, there is no legal action planned. (The entire point of contacting Wikipedia was to avoid litigation.) Wrbinc (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Mr. Martin, I'm starting a new paragraph to respond to your points above, so that comments don't get lost or overlooked:

I'm glad you understand about your COI and how to request changes via the talk page. That will be very helpful and will keep the article "clean". I'm glad you also understand that you don't own the article. Neither do I, neither does anyone. The article will be based on what we find in sources, not on what any one of us would like it to say.

With that said: please specify exactly what information is in the article currently that you consider false and misleading. It would be best to do that on the article talk page, one item at a time. Since you can't currently post anywhere but here on your talk page, you could post the items here - or you could save up your notes, and post them at the article talk page when your username situation gets resolved. Please make each item specific and in a separate paragraph, and I will look into them. I plan to rewrite the history section, so you might wait on that until you see what I do with it. For now I will source it to the company website since that is currently the only reference we have.

Regarding WP:Notability: We need significant coverage from independent reliable sources to prove notability. Notability as Wikipedia defines it means notice taken by others. Your webpage does nothing to prove notability. In my note above I showed the results of a Google News search; they show many mentions, as in "This week's Oktoberfest will feature games including Hammerschlagen". Many of those links ARE from independent reliable sources, but they are not significant coverage. What we are looking for is some significant coverage, maybe from newspapers or magazines, about your company, its founding, its activities - anything that is ABOUT your company and not just a mention of the game.

Regarding WP:Verifability, your web page can be used as one source of information, but it can't be the only such source. That's why it's OK that Budweiser, Miller Lite, and in fact most companies have their web pages as one source of information. What they have, and what is missing here, is OTHER sources as well.

Bottom line, per Wikipedia policy we cannot have an article whose ONLY source of information is the company. We need outside coverage as well. I hope you can help us find some.

One other question: is the "rules" section in the article a verbatim copy of something from WRB? If so we can't have it here, per Wikipedia's copyright policies. We could summarize or paraphrase them, but we can't have the exact wording.

Update: Actually, I answered my own question. I found a copyrighted list of rules on your website, and I could see that the rules in the Wikipedia article are not a copy-paste of those rules. However, somebody had added to the article a photograph of the official list of rules, and I deleted it as a copyvio. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

About article deletion, I hope it won't come to that. We can avoid it by finding significant coverage from independent reliable sources.--MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you MelanieN for your explanations. After I get the username thing resolved, I will do as you ask and request modifications one line item at a time and provide references that are not published by WRB, Inc of MN. (Any idea how to speed up the username thing other than just waiting on an unblock from the request above?)

If you have chosen to delete a picture containing our copyrighted material, do also find it necessary to delete all remnants of our federally and state filed intellectual property? (Not that I'm asking, but if it is policy it should be followed.) If so, I am willing to provide federal and state filing numbers for your reference. (Please note that CorporateM stated on the Talk:Hammerschlagen page that our intellectual property may be able to be used by Wikipedia under fair-use laws and under certain conditions.)

Wrbinc (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The rules at Wikipedia are very strict about copying material from other sources, whether or not it has been formally copyrighted. This is because of the nature of Wikipedia's own publishing terms. (Every time you perform an edit here, when you click "save" you "agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution") The bottom line is that text posted at Wikipedia can be freely used by others - copied, altered, republished for profit, etc. - and so Wikipedia is very careful not to use anything that cannot be used that freely. In Wikipedia's interpretation that includes almost anything that has been previously published. So it won't be necessary for you to prove "ownership of intellectual property" - you can just show me where something has been previously published (that includes websites, blogs, etc.) and we will (possibly) remove or (more likely) reword it. There are a few fair-use exceptions - for example, citing brief text in quotation marks with a reference, as is done in book reviews. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You have been unblocked

Hi - you have been unblocked. I don't do name changes, so, you can be patient or go here: Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple. I will be monitoring your edits, so please do not violate any policies regarding conflict of interest, neutrality etc. I also hope you'll consider editing Wikipedia regarding subjects that interest you personally, not just professionally. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Missvain. I am very wary to do any editing (especially to Hammerschlagen) as I have been told not to and I wish to respect the spirit of Wikipedia. If I do take you up on your invitation, which is very welcoming, I hope to remain within acceptable boundaries; if I fall outside, please do not hesitate to contact me so that we may take action to correct any issues. Also, I will put in a username request shortly. Wrbinc (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

I declined the three {{request edit}}s because it wasn't clear exactly how you wanted it worded and/or there weren't sources to back up the change. I started a new section on the talk page to discuss preparing a draft of the article in user space - getting it properly worded and cited - so that there is specific text we can work with. If you'd like help with that, please let me know. I would be happy to help. CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Carole, thanks for taking this on. I would just add: several of those edit requests were absolutely hopeless. They sounded like they had been written by the company's legal department. This is an encyclopedia, and we word things in an encyclopedic way. For example we will make clear if something is trademarked, but we won't keep repeating same in every sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, MelanieN. I think your point "This is an encyclopedia, and we word things in an encyclopedic way" is particularly on point here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your aid and comments. (I'm sorry, but I haven't been able to get online for a while.)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jim at WRB/Hammerschlagen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Jim at WRB/Hammerschlagen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Hammerschlagen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hammerschlagen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hammerschlagen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, MelanieN, for the notification. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hammerschlagen for my comments.Jim at WRB (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting at that discussion. You should continue to post there about whether the article should be kept or deleted. I have listed some of the references from your deleted draft at that discussion. But I also have a personal message for you: I suggest you consider whether your company might be better off without a Wikipedia article. I know that is counterintuitive; every business wants publicity. But some companies have found to their sorrow that a Wikipedia article can be a liability instead of an asset. In the case of your company, it is very important to you (for copyright reasons) to control your publicity, your message. And you can't do that on Wikipedia; you don't WP:OWN a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is never going to accept an article like your draft, which was basically all about the sanctity of the brand. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An article here is going to be informative, based on what is reported in reliable sources, and not hedged about with legalisms. You have expressed concern that such an article might unintentionally encourage dilution of your brand; if that's your concern, you might be better off limiting your publicity to vehicles that you can totally control. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles are based on everything that is reliably reported about the subject, whether it is positive or negative. If the company should become involved in a scandal or perhaps a highly-publicized accident, that material would be added to the article and you would not be able to get it removed. In fact, if a company became highly notorious, the article would report the negative issues, and the company would not be able to get the article deleted even if they tried. I am not saying any of these things will happen, but it should be a consideration to you: do you really want to fight to maintain an article in a medium you can't control? I offer this comment in good faith and with good will toward you and your company. And I'm not advising you one way or the other, just pointing out that a Wikipedia article can have downsides as well as upsides. Think about it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern for us, MelanieN. I am under your advisement regarding the fact that we cannot control what is published on Wikipedia. And, I do recognize that things must be reliably reported. In the event that something happens and we become notorious for some sort of scandal, it is much better that the truth be told and not just a bunch of hookie. For this reason, I am relying heavily on the fact that Wikipedia will remove content that is not sourced while at the same time publishing information that is from reliable sources. My primary concern is the publication by Wikipedia that we are not the origin of our trademarks and the encouragement to the public to steal our property without our permission. I will put together another draft, and would greatly appreciate your input so that I may come to understand what is "promotional" and what is not. (There is clearly some sort of disconnect in my understanding of "promotional" in this regard. I would very much like to learn so that I can overcome my own faults.) Jim at WRB (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying that Wikipedia "encourages the public to steal our property without our permission" and that the current article states that "we are not the origin of our trademarks." I am baffled by these comments. Could you please point out where in the article you find this encouragement and this claim? --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for confusing you, MelanieN. Please consider this. If I publically promoted that it was acceptable to create this container and put a liquid that is generically called "Coke" into it that could be created by using this reciepe, I would be encouraging members of the public to steal the property of the Coca-Cola Company. This is because I would be promoting that those properties do not exist: the Coke recipe; the "Coke" trademark; and the Coke trade dress. If someone in the public relied upon my statements to make this soda-pop product, they would be using the property of the Coca-Cola Company without first obtaining permission to do so. This is exactly what the Hammerschlagen article is doing to us. It is encouraging the public to replicate our Hammerschlagen trade dress and engage in a nail driving competition under our "Hammerschlagen" trademark by our copywritten "Hammer-Schlagen Rules" by promoting that we do not own these properties. To be clear in an answer to your question regarding where in the article I find the encouragement to steal: by not identifying us as the owners of these elements of our brand, it is communicated that it is acceptable to use our property without our permission. As for your question regarding where in the article I find the claim that we are not the origin of our property: no where does it state that we own our Hammerschlagen trade dress or our Hammerschlagen Rules copyright. (Please know that I am aware of the changes you made to clarify that we exist and that the word "Hammerschlagen" is our trademark. Thank you for doing that.) Jim at WRB (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Jim, the article plainly states, right in the lead paragraph, that Hammerschlagen is your trademark. The article does not encourage people to violate the trademark; it simply goes on to describe the subject of the article in greater detail. That is the way with all articles here. For example, you keep talking about Coke, which does have a problem with people using the word "Coke" as a generic for "cola". But look at the Wikipedia article for Coca-Cola! It states in a single sentence in the lead paragraph that Coke is a registered trademark. That's it for the article; it doesn't harp on the trademark issue; the rest of the article is about the Coca-Cola product. Same with Kleenex or Wite-Out or Xerox. It's absurd to say that a description of the subject is "encouragement to steal". All that other stuff that you want to insert - the trade dress is also a trademark, the rules are copyrighted (note that the article contains a paraphrase/summary rather than your copyrighted rules), readers must never play any game that is anything like this unless they do it through WRB Inc, brand brand brand - that is never going to be in the article. Never. This is an encyclopedia; it's not something written by your legal department. If this encyclopedic treatment is unsatisfactory to you, I suggest you follow my advice above and allow the article to be deleted from Wikipedia as is currently under discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN- First, and foremost, yes, the article plainly states that the word "hammerschlagen" is our trademark: thank you for updating the article to clearly state this fact. Secondly, I do not think I have communicated my primary point about our trade dress well enough, so please let me try again. (There are a few other things I would like to touch on, but I'm trying not to confuse issues.) The article does not state that the three-dimensional trade dress is our property. As you may not contain liquid using the Coke trade dress without Coke's permission, you may not engage in a nail driving competition using the Hammerschlagen trade dress without Hammer-Schlagen's permission. Coke would have a problem with people making a cola and putting it in their trade dress, just as Hammer-Schlagen would have a problem with people engaging in a nail driving competition under its trade dress. I am not advocating or requesting that Wikipedia demand the public not engage in any kind of nail driving competition whatsoever without our express permission: I agree that doing so is absurd and I don't believe that I have ever done this. After all, our ownership of our trade dress does not prohibit others from engaging in a nail driving competition (like this, this, this, this, and this) just as Coke's ownership of their trade dress does not prohibit others (like Pepsi) from containing a liquid in a bottle. I have no problem with encyclopedic content that describes our brand, but I do have a problem with misleading the public. The Hammerschlagen article clearly informs the public how to replicate our trade dress and instructs its reader how to partake in a nail driving competition using our property. As demonstrated by the pages for Coke (an entire section harping on its brand), Kleenex, Xerox, and on other brands, it is acceptable to fully describe the property of a brand on Wikipedia. Even Wite-Out uses legalese to describe a trademark (The trademark "Wite-Out" was registered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on February 5, 1974. (The application listed the date of "first use in commerce" as January 27, 1966.)). I would appreciate some guidance on the issue as to why it is unacceptable for our property to be described in a section of the article (for example, as proposed) while "all that other stuff" is in the articles for other brand pages like the ones you mentioned. Is it just that what I proposed is to "legal" sounding? Jim at WRB (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all of those articles have a sentence, right up front in the lead paragraph, pointing out the existence of patent or trademark ownership. So does Hammerschlagen (plus more about WRB Inc's ownership in a later paragraph). That is all appropriate, but you are trying to take it to extremes. For example, in your draft, you want to list every trademarked phrase you own. I don't think you will find that at any other article. To take your favorite example, I am sure that Coca-Cola owns dozens of trademarked phrases (such as "Have a Coke and a smile" or "The pause that refreshes"); the Coca-Cola article does not list those phrases or point out that they are copyrighted. The "Brand portfolio" section in those articles is not "harping on the brand", it is listing the products that they sell; if you sell other games besides Hammerschlagen, it would be appropriate to list them in such a section. And as for "trade dress"; true, people may not sell a cola in a bottle duplicating the Coke trade dress, but the Wikipedia article does not point that out. We are really getting nowhere here; we are just repeating ourselves. Let's wait and see the outcome of the deletion discussion; that outcome will depend on whether the discussants feel there is significant coverage from independent reliable sources. If the decision at that discussion is "keep", then we can talk about whether to add more information about your brand ownership. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you MelanieN for the clarification. I think I'm reading your words correctly: its the language that is at issue and the presentation of too much material. You may think we're going nowhere, but no one has ever explained this to me using examples so that the explanation is clear and concise. I appreciate the fact that you have done this. You may not realize it, but you have helped me a lot--not just for the current conversation of Hammerschlagen but any edits that I might make in the future to other pages as well. On the trade dress issue: The Wiki article does point out that others may not use their property by stating that Coke owns it. I think a simple statement that we own our trade dress would suffice, and its addition would be appreciated. (I've updated the draft in an attempt to reflect what you have taught me.) Jim at WRB (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

We might be able to work out a wording along those lines. But I am not going to devote any more time to this until it is decided whether to keep the article or delete it. That decision is not up to me. When the discussion has run its course, the result will be determined by an uninvolved administrator. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)