Talk:FedEx furniture

Major Expansion (December, 2005

Please be on the lookup for a persistent vandal who has, I believe, used sock puppets to undermine this page -- for example, by asserting that Avila is a "habitual masturbator" and has "pink hair." Perhaps this individual is not truly a vandal, but rather a potential contributor who was outraged by a perceived anti-corporate slant to previous versions of this article; if so, I hope the current version does a good enough job telling FedEx's side of the story that he or she will stop abusing the page.Bryan 15:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, not to defend a vandal or antyhing, but Avila did have pink hair (dyed, obviously) at some point in 2005, as can be seen in the main photo for the Wired News article about the site and legal battles from August of that year. As of right now, even the FedEx Furniture website includes a picture of Avila with either red or pink hair (it's hard to tell under those lighting conditions), sitting at the desk. (It's on the right side of the page, underneath the "Supporters" buttons). However, I do fail to see what the site operator's hair color has to do with the article's subject (it's not like he had the FedEx logo colors dyed into his hair or anything), so no qualms about it being removed on my part. :P Runa27 18:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

FedEx' arguments

I'm a non-US citizen, and I have no experience with FedEx whatsoever. When I first dumped over this story, I really believed that the furniture was built from used boxes. Used cardboxes are really plentiful, and a valuable resource - furniture built out of used cardboard boxes is good resource utilization, as those boxes usually are burnt or thrown away. I'm also concerned that the DMCA can be used for anyone to shut down any site they dislike, so I got interessted and googled a bit around on this story.

My view on the story got a bit changed when I learnt that FedEx provides new boxes for free for their customers - of course, this means that if FedExFurniture got popular, FedEx would be sponsoring most of the costs. I've added this bit of information into the page, and I think it's a bit important to keep it there.

Another argument I saw once was that "FedEx doesn't want any responsibility for customers injuring themselves on FedexFurniture". I think that's also worth including, as a non-US citizen I find such argumentation amuzing :-) However, I'm without references, and I don't see where it could fit with the current design.

tobixen 16:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Still, FedEx shouldn't do that. That's ridiculous.

I dislike that the section describing the rationale behind FedEx' action has disappeared. tobixen 00:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's probably because you didn't provide a source. Some people, I've noticed, will remove any unsourced information that plays an significant part in an article, no matter how easy it is for others to source it (this peeves me a little, as it's better to source it than remove accurate information, I think, and we do have the {{Fact}} tag for that). Of course, they have a reason for this - because they don't want unsourced information creeping in, which is a valid concern. However, if FedEx really does provide boxes for free, this should be noted as it makes FedEx's otherwise inexplicable reasoning behind not wanting the site up much less, well, inexplicable. There is probably a page on FedEx's website where this is noted, if true, so it shouldn't be too hard to source. I'd also like to note that the 9.5 foot couch on the site is listed as unfinished because Avila claims it is "hard to get FedEx to deliver to [his] house" lately; this could be why :P. Avila does claim to make frequent use of FedEx services, though. Runa27 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FedEx furniture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060422151845/http://www.counterthink.org/011583.html to http://www.counterthink.org/011583.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125030640/http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/archives/CIS%20letter.pdf to http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/archives/CIS%20letter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)