User talk:Mattnad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Blue Ocean Strategy Examples

Why do you think it's Wii but not DS? Current DS sales in Japan shows that Nintendo is in a Blue Ocean market with this product already -- and it will take months or even years to do the same with Wii. Also DS but not Wii was presented as an example of Blue Ocean strategy by Nintendo's President Satoru Iwata at anual shareholder meetings this year and in 2006. Lr33 09:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think both the DS and the Wii probably qualify as blue oceans now that I've read the link your provided. The Wii has been cited among Blue Ocean wonks as a new market for those who don't want the best graphics, but like the ease of access of the new, motion sensitive controller. Nintendo added this capability while reducing cost that would have gone into the graphics and the Blue Ray disk. See http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2063714.ece?token=null&offset=12. It mentions both the DS and the Wii. Feel free to adapt as you see fit.Mattnad 13:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i'll have to look for more sources for some of those comments, thanks for messaging me about that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.166.183 (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your rewrite of Wonderbra

Wow, you've done a lot of work on it. Please consider the lead section carefully. It (and the rest of the article, but the lead section is the worst offender) now reads as if this product is notable only in the US and Canada, which is not the case. --Dweller 15:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I may end up removing that lead completely (unless someone else does it for me). I agree there's a U.S. orientation to the explanitory lead, mainly because Europeans and Canadians have had a longer experience with the Brand than Americans. I've tweaked the lead to give a greater nod to the global awareness of Wonderbra. I would also welcome help on boosting the global perspective of this article (for anyone out there). - Mattnad 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My "object" vote

I'm sorry to object. I came across so many serious (and a few trivial) issues in a cursory look, that I couldn't in good conscience support, even though it's a terrific piece of work. Please feel free to disagree vehemently with my opinions. I'll return later this week with any further thoughts. --Dweller 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the FAC page and thanks for the detailed response. I'm reluctant to view the article at my current computer because some of the images would be inappropriate for this setting, but it sounds like you've addressed all my concerns. I'll take another look at the article asap and hopefully I'll be able to support. --Dweller 13:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fashion category

Hi mattnad, I haven't yet finished the fashion category yet so that is why the Giorgio Armani, etc. remain. When I was going through the category, I was making sure that all the articles were in at least one appropriate fashion-related subcategory. For instance, Vera Wang and Karl Lagerfeld are both in fashion designers by nationality categories, which are (easy-to-locate) subcategories of fashion, so I thought there was no need for them to be both in the subcategories and in the higher-level category (per Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines). In some cases, it is possible that articles should be in multiple fashion-related subcategories, and I was doing my best to place them into multiple ones where appropriate. For designers, I suppose, it may be necessary to go through that entire category of fashion designers later and flag all the articles (including ones that hadn't been in the fashion category previously) that have eponymous brands or companies, because this hadn't been happening systematically before. I don't think that I eliminated any articles from the fashion category that didn't already belong to another subcategory of fashion, but I can go through and double-check my work. Does my system sound like a reasonable one? If you have any other thoughts before I go through any more, let me know. Calliopejen 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple more things while I'm thinking about it:

The clothing brands category is not new--it's been around for about a year. I stuck it under the fashion header because it was a little more buried before, and a lot of clothing brands just ended up in the general fashion category. Maybe it should stay nested under clothing? I'm not sure, but I figured it was better having that category there than a random assortment of brands throughout the list. Also, maybe some of these should be reclassified as clothing retailers or manufacturers, but I wasn't sure of exactly how the clothing companies were being categorized and figured that "clothing brands" was more descriptive than "fashion" and that someone with more expertise could sort out those subcategories. (I think that "clothing brands" coexisting with "clothing manufacturers" and "clothing retailers" could definitely be least somewhat problematic.)

And just for confirmation, let me know if you agree with some of the general principles I was using-- Where an article belonged to both fashion and a nationality of fashion designers, I eliminated the fashion category. same for fashion and clothing retailers/manufacturers/brands/similar, fashion and models, fashion and fashion magazines. Those are probably the vast majority of the articles. (If we don't use these rules, it's probably necessary to add all the members of those subcategories to the top level.)

Sorry to leave such a long message! Thanks for your help! Calliopejen 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as an overarching vision for the category goes, I really didn't have one at this point. My goal in doing this clean-up was mostly to make the categorization scheme consistent, and then when that was complete maybe to look at what the category as a whole should look like. One big problem with the category before is that there was no consistency in which articles made it to the top category and which didn't. There are hundreds of pages on fashion designers (see Cat:fashion designers by nationality), but only a few random ones were on the top page. Likewise for different styles of clothing, fashion magazines, models, etc. So for now I was just putting articles that belonged to well-defined, populated subcategories into those subcategories, and later I guess we could sort out where we want those subcategories to appear in the bigger hierarchy.

I agree that the top page description doesn't match what's actually in the fashion category. Obviously the word fashion has two different meanings (social trends, clothing), which causes problems. It seemed like the past consensus (from the fashion article and in the category description) was that fashion includes things besides clothing, so I was just trying to stick with that for now. (I'm not sure if there are many articles about fashion other than clothing that should be tagged for the category though...)

At this point, I think I'll continue to move articles into subcategories where appropriate (because I think it is better for the scheme to at least be consistent) and I'll ask for comment on the category on the Cat:fashion talk page regarding the broader organization. Let me know if you think I should do something different. Calliopejen 16:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Wonderbra to fashion project

Just thought I'd let you know that I added Wonderbra to the the fashion project mainly so we could get at least one FA within its scope, even though the work was done before the project was created. I hope you don't mind; it's not like we're trying to claim some sort of share of the glory. Daniel Case 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy it's there. You might also take the next step and add a relevant fashion sub-category to the article itself, rather than only on the discussion page. In an earlier version of the article, I had a link to the fashion category, but that link was removed by Calliopejen as part of her restructuring of the category (hence my queries to her on the logic and approach). Under the new fashion category taxonomy, I'm not yet sure there's a place for this article, so I encourage you both to look into it. Mattnad 21:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Have to go to dinner soon, so I'll be quick. There currently seems to be no policy for how to do it, and as a result I follow the unofficial consensus that they go in order of relevance or importance. The clothing categories it's in are already under the Cat:Fashion tree; I also created Cat:Brassiere because there are several bra-related articles in the underwear category already (actually, I suppose I should create a lingerie category and put all lingerie in there). Daniel Case 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another note. Those links to the old ads at YouTube are going to have to go per WP:EL unless there's some way they're not copyright violations. No one mentioned this during the FA noms, but they will if and when it gets on the main page. Daniel Case 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Wintour GA comments

Thanks very much for them ... they were useful. I hope it passes.

[edit] Main paging Wonderbra

On a semi-related note, I was "wonder"ing if you were planning to nominate Wonderbra for the main page. Obviously it would be a major vandalism target, but what FA isn't? (I ask because it would be a good way to promote the fashion project until we eventually develop one on our own into FA material). Daniel Case 04:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, people nominate their own articles for the Main Page all the time, but I'm moved by your modesty. I've done it for other people; I can certainly do it for you. Any date relevant, or does it matter? Daniel Case 18:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean, any date you want it on the Main page? Daniel Case 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been done. Daniel Case 03:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see it happen. We just have to be on guard that day ... I'm glad it's after the North American school year is mostly over. and not on a weekend, but it will attract vandalism. Daniel Case 22:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wonderbra

Just to let you know I've made some additions/tweaks to it (sourced, of course!!!!). I'm a UK female, so have some experience>>>>! 86.137.136.166 10:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hey, you may want to tend to your Wonderbra page soon. Someone vandalized it by putting pictures of an erect and flaccid penis on the page. --Bdj95 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bose

While I agree with you, please don't spread the debate to the reliable sources noticeboard. I figured if we ignored it on that noticeboard it wuld help to highlight that UKP is just forum shopping because he doesn't like the link. Greglocock 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, more Bose silliness. I have explicitly asked UKP NOT to post on my talk page. Frankly arguing with him is like stepping in dog-shit (ie useless, deeply unpleasant, and memorable for all the wrong reasons). I don't care either way about the THX issue, it doesn't seem to me to illustrate anything other than a commercial decision. However, please do continue to keep him and the other fan-boys from taking the article over, one eyed boosterism will kill wiki, which is a shame.I actually think the article as it stands is not too bad... famous last words. Greglocock (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:47Z

[edit] Circumcision

Copied from my talk:

I'm wondering if we should include mention of female circumcision in this article - granted there are very different. I know this is all political and you have been in the midst of it a lot longer than I. Mattnad (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, we do include mention of female circumcision, in the 'hatnote' at the very start of the article. I think it would be a mistake, however, to include any more than that. My reasoning is that there is already a perfectly good article about FGC. Also, the concept of FGC is, as you say, very different, and articles should be about concepts, not words. Also, the term "female circumcision" is somewhat controversial, and many authorities argue that it is inappropriate (see the FGC article for details), which would make it an NPOV minefield. Finally, the article is already long, and this would not be helped by (inevitably) long to-and-fro discussion of viewpoints about whether FGC and C are similar/dissimilar (all of which may be mildly interesting, but which would tell the reader nothing about the subject of the article).

The problem, as I see it, is that some people passionately believe that FGC and C are alike, and that the analogy is therefore illustrative. On the other hand, other people believe (equally passionately) that FGC and C are radically different, and that the contrast between the two is illustrative. However, since we have to approach the subject from an NPOV position, we can only really illustrate the fact that there is disagreement over whether FGC and C are comparable, and while that may tell us a little about people, it isn't very illustrative about the subject of the article!

This is perhaps too much detail, so in short, I think it would do more harm than good.

Jakew (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bras and Cancer

I was merely pointing out that, from may understanding of what the study' results showed, it didn't seem like a very controlled, scientific study on the subject. I'm not saying that we should include this view or such in the article, but I'm trying to point out that the study would not appear to support the opposing view that they (bras) don't cause cancer, because, as the study' abstract says, women who don't use bras have half the cancer risk of women who do wear bras, but it seems to have failed to study women with large breasts who would normally use bras, but don't, vs women with large breasts, who DO use bras, which in my mind would have to be done in order to study the bras as a factor, while removing all other factors.

In my mind this study hasn't properly looked into the subject, because they seemed to lack the correct controls for the subject.

I hate to play the Devils advocate, but 70 years ago people thought smoking was completely safe too, and 70 years ago there were few studies on the subject, but now we do know that is is a factor in causing cancer, and not just Lung cancer.

I understand completely your desire to keep the article from becoming filled with pseudo-science and such nonsense. However, if this article wasn't about bras, but rather, lets say, carbon nanotubes, and someone came in with a citation that showed there was a cancer risk, and then another person person cited another article that showed no link, it would be necessary to include both sides of the debate on whether or not carbon nanotubes where dangerous to one's health.

I don't feel it would be undue weight, therefore, to present both sides in a one-two sentience paragraph at the bottom of the health problem section (before Mastalgia). --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, I don't feel it would be a violation of WP:UNDUE to include a passing mention of the theory.

_{ps sorry for the late reply}--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 07:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Emile

Sincerely, thank you. I did not realize it wasn't Kosher to post these type of links. Thank you for being reasonable and everything. Please excuse my ignorance. Also the lists I was trying to link to do not seem to be working. (list of Musicians from Montreal) Thanks for your help and diligence. I feel you've been doing justice to the true spirit of wikipedia even when we are in opposition. (Is a radio interview fair game to note?) Whordwind (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wonderbra in Popular Culture

Thanks for clarifying why you reversed my Wonderbra in the Media contribution to the Wonderbra article. I will contribute to a Wonderbra in Popular Culture article, should you create one and reference it in the main article.xpanmanx (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good job

On Eli Langer. I put a tag on the "current career section," only for now, maybe you or I or someone else will get to it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] iPhone and Copyright

The iPhone article is held to a higher standard because it was picked to go on the Wikipedia CD eventually, but the discussion is ongoing on the talk page and should continue there, thanks. -- Atama ^chat 22:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] iPhone picture

Hey, I just wanted to drop you a line personally to make sure that I got across that I don't mean to be harsh or overly critical of your contributions and picture, I appreciate it a lot. Some folks seem more excited about arguing than improving articles, and you jumped right in to try and make it better, and did. Any picture actually showing it is better than that blurred mess, so thanks. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:IPhone Home.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:IPhone Home.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:IPhone Home.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:IPhone Home.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).