Talk:RP7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and economics Portal This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub	rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

And what is the history of the name? Rust Preventer, Attempt 7? Or is there something else here?

I'm not entirely sure, Selleys would be the best people to ask. Because I'm not sure I didn't include it, if someone knows that'd be great, oh but make sure you comply with WP:OR because even if you do know it dosent matter unles you can publish that fact that you know. Stupidity, yes I know. Nick carson 05:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've tagged this article for a complete rewrite for the following reasons:

• The first sentence is a copyvio from [1]
• The use of the word 'superior' in the second sentence may be a WP:NPOV vio
• The third sentence appears to be original research

--Richmeister 14:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Re your second point, I think it means that it is marketed as a superior alternative. boffy_b 22:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was quite unbiased in writing that. Personally I find them both to be identical but prefer to use RP7 because its the Australian one and its cheaper! What else can I write for the first centence??? Thats what it is! I'm not promoting the company from taking its description from its website. If you talk about tennis balls and describe them as yellow do you then say thats wrong because the manufacturers also refer to them as yellow? Silly. The use of the word superior is neutral point of view because it is marketed as that, which isnt saying that it is or it isnt, thats just what its marketed as. The third centence is original research and if I need an external source like something from the media or a website or a book telling me what I already know then thats crazy! Anyone in Australia knows that they're always on the shelf next to eachother. Theres nothing wrong with original research when used responsibly and correctly. See Somers, Victoria for an almost entirely original research written article. Nick carson 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying that RP7 is marketed as an alternative to WD-40 would be NPOV. Saying it is marketed as a superior alternative, which may be true, still offers the viewpoint that it is a superior product.

Crazy or not, WP:OR states: Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serve to advance a position hence I've tagged the Somers article as original research too. --Richmeister 05:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So only people who have the money and the means to publish their arguments, ideas, data and theories should be heard? That is financial discimination. If you see a problem with my own (or anyones for that matter) arguments, ideas, data and theories, then you can come to me and discuss it with me, don't slap me with some discriminative bullshit that means that any unpublished facts, theories, arguments etc etc don't mean shit, because that is the craziest thing I've ever heard. Nick carson 05:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If that's going to be your attitude towards the official policies, maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. --Richmeister 05:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I discussed the iddue on the policies talk page and it would seem the greater issue is being resolved as we speak. Also, it is marketed as a superior alternative, not simply as an alternative, any other information on how it is marketed would be incorrect. If you feel certain things need to be changed, it would be better if you discussed the changes here as I am attempting to do rather than slap a tag on it and carry on.Nick carson 04:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)