User talk:Mdcohen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit] Stirrups.

You cannot promote one commercial brand, wikipedia is not an advertising service.

I AM NOT PROMOTING A BRAND. MY PATENTED INVENTION HAS A NAME REGISTERED WITH THE US PATENT AND TRADE MARK OFFICE. MDC INTELLIGENT STIRRUP, MDC ULTIMATE STIRRUP AND MDC COMFORT STIRRUP ARE A SPECIFIC NAME OF AN INVENTION JUST AS MUCH AS PEACOCK STIRRUP IS A SPECIFIC TYPE OF STIRRUP. THESE NAMES ARE INVENTIONS AS WELL AS BRANDS.

You also provide absolutely NO scientific verification for this data. I am more than glad to remove any copyrighted name.

YOU HAVE NOT SCIENTIFIC DATA FOR THE MAJORITY OF YOUR COMMENTS, MOST OF WHICH ARE CUT AND PASTE FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT OF YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE OR AWARENESS. I WAS KIND ENOUGH NOT TO TEAR INTO YOUR ARTICLE TO POINT OUT THE ERRORS OF OPINION PUBLISHED FROM YOUR UNKNOWN SOURCE.

your statements are also totally inapplicable to western stirrups.

NEVER SAID THEY WERE APPLICABLE.

Without outside studies (not paid for by your company) your statements cannot be verified.

HAVE YOU EVER EXTENSIVELY RIDDEN A HORSES?

HAVE YOUR EVER TAUGHT A LESSON TO STUDENTS?

HAVE YOU SPENT OVER 35 YEARS IN THE EQUESTRIAN INDUSTRY?

HAVE YOU EVER SPENT HOURS AND HOURS AND DAYS AND DAYS WATCHING HORSES AND RIDERS GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS?

SINCE THE ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS CAN NOT BE VERIFIED, YOUR COMMENTS AND CRITICISM CAN NOT BE TAKEN AS ANYTHING THAN A FAIRLY SMART GUY WITH NOT MUCH ELSE TO DO WITH HIS LIFE THAN TO QUESTION WHAT HE KNOWS LITTLE ABOUT.

I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE EQUESTRIAN PERSPECTIVE TO SEPARATE THE ISSUES OF MY COMMENTS EXCEPT THROUGH CRITICISM AND DISECTION.

Furthermore, your own expertise is not terribly relevant, see Wikipedia:No original research and especially, WP:ADVERT. If you are correct, then your expertise can be verified by neutral, outside sources. Montanabw^(talk) 23:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I WOULD SAY THAT MY EXPERTISE IS EXTREMELY RELEVANT AS I AM IN THE ARENA PRODUCING, INVENTING, TAKING RISKS AND BEING SUCCESSFUL IN MY AREA OF ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERTISE.

MY EXPERTISE HAS BEEN MANY TIMES ACKNOWLEDGED BY COURTS OF LAW. PLEASE CONTACT ANY AND ALL ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES WHO HAVE VALIDATED THIS EXPERTISE.

FUTHER, I AM ONE OF ONLY TWO PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES WHO HOLD LICENSES AS AN INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL JUDGE, COURSE DESIGNER AND CHIEF STEWARD AS WELL AS BEING A JUDGE AT TWO OLYMPIC GAMES.

DOES THOSE CREDENTIALS GIVEN BY NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES ACT AS VERIFICATION BY A NEUTRAL, OUTSIDE SOURCE.

PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR BACKGROUND OR ANY EXPERTISE.

Note: from WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT "please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etcetera. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge."

Oh, and another helpful hint: Your user page also violates WP:ADVERT "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." and also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Also Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia content is not:

• Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise...
• Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable."

YOU NEED TO GET A DATE.

In fact, just read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it is pretty clear. "Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it."

DO YOU CONSIDER THE US PATENT AND TRADEMARKS OFFICE A SECONDARY SOURCE OF REPORT? ALSO THE THE EU PATENT AND TRADEMARKS OFFICE.

Also note Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: If "...you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing; then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased)."

MY INPUT WAS TO EDUCATE AND INFORM. SHOULD PROFIT COME FOR THIS EDUCATION OR INFORMATION, SO BE IT.

IF I WRITE AN ARTICLE INCLUDING THE ASSEMBLY LINE AND POINT TO FORD MOTOR CARS AND THEY HAPPEN TO SELL CARS...

I feel like I am being a bit harsh on someone who is a new wikipedia editor, but the bottom line is that this is not the place to get free advertising.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOUR DON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEW INFORMATION AND THE SECONDARY BENEFIT OF UNINTENDED ADVERTISING AND PROTITS. YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF PEACOCK STIRRUPS CAN BENEFIT THAT PRODUCT THROUGH SECONDARY ADVERTISING AND INCREASED SALES DUE TO BEING IN WIKIPEDIA. WHY DOESN'T MY INVENTION HAVE THE SAME ACCEPTANCE?

I DON'T THINK YOU ARE HARSH, JUST UNINFORMED AS TO WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WORLD OF MODERN DAY STIRRUPS AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OLD AND NEW TECHNOLOGY AND THE BENEFITS OF INFORMING THE PUBLIC. SHOULD THIS NEW INFORMATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE INVENTION AND TRADE NAMES ASSOCIATED WITH IT CAUSE ADVERTISING AND PROFIT, HOW CAN ONE STOP IT AND STILL REPORT THE INVENION?

MY INVENTION,IT'S NAME AND IT'S BENEFITS WILL BE ON THE PLANET AND WITHIN THE EQUESTRIAN COMMUNITY AFTER I AM GONE AND AFTER YOU ARE GONE, WHETHER YOU ACCEPT THE INPUT TO THE SITE OR NOT.

If Horse Journal reported on your invention, then that is useful and worth citing the article (to verify a statement of a fact, though, and not to say it's a best buy or whatever),

THAT SHOWS YOUR LIMITED SCOPE. THE HORSE JOURNAL IS JUST A MAGAZINE GIVING OUT THERE PERSONAL AWARDS ONLY ON HOW THEY PERCEIVE PRODUCTS WITH NO TESTING OR VALIDATING OF ANY KIND. YOUR BLIND ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR ENDORSEMENT IS TOO EASILY ACKNOWLEDGED AND SUPERFICIAL.

if there was University-sponsored independent research on the laws of physics as regards riders falling off horses that could support your closing door theory, that would also be even better.  Even then, wikipedia still has to be written with a neutral point of view, we can't say this design is superior based on a few endorsements.

ITS NOT THE ENDORSEMENTS. IT IS THE LOGIC FROM YEARS OF EQUESTRIAN EXPERIENCE AND HOW THAT IMPACTS THE RIDING PUBLIC. THEY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT STIRRUPS AND HOW THEY PERFORM, THEIR BACKGROUND AND THEIR USAGE.

THE EQUESTRIAN INDUSTRY ISN'T AND, FOR THE MOST PART, HAS SELDOM BEEN ABOUT SCIENCE PER SE. THE GREATEST RIDERS AND TEACHERS HAVE VERY LITTLE IN THE WAY OF EXPERTISE EXCEPT THE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE ON THE JOB. HORSES ARE AN ART FORM AND NOT A SCIENCE.

We have had similar problems with the "bitless bridle" folks in the past. One person really wanted to push a particular design. No can do. Realize that just saying that you are an expert and here is your invention, which you have shown to be the best, well--objectively you can see how this sort of puts you in line with the guy who has the better mousetrap and the perpetual motion machine. Montanabw^(talk) 03:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)