Welcome & thanks[edit]

Hi and welcome to WP. Thanks for cleaning up some of the issues at Sailcloth. You seem to really know your fibers. However, there was no attempt to advertise at that article, just writing in layman's terms using the typical names by which people know the products. We have to walk a fine line between being proper and being understandable. Some trade names become so common in usage that to use the purely generic names would make the articles less informative. Of course there are regional customs to be considered as well.

That said, there might be some ways to inform with less reliance on tradenames, and I look forward to your help on improving Sailcloth and other articles. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note...[edit]

Hi there.

I see that you are making a career out of replacing plastics brand names with proper terminology. I applaud your efforts, but I would like to remind you to assume good faith and be civil. People often use brand names out of ignorance or carelessness. Please don't assume that instances of brand name usage are the result of advertising unless you have a good reason for it. An edit summary like "replaced brand name with general term" works much better than "removed advertising".

Thanks, and I hope I haven't touched a nerve. • TheBendster (talk) 12 July 2008, 19:25 (UTC)

I'd like to second that - there is no requirement to replace brand names with generic names. Your edit to Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment is a good example - Mylar and Kapton are the specific brands used, and naming them in the article is accurate and precise, and not a form of advertisement. Please be a bit more careful with such edits in the future, and maybe read over Wikipedia:Spam to get a better idea of what you should worry about.— Swpb^{τ • c} 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The article is merely an ad for DuPont"? Come on. The brand used is Mylar. Including that fact isn't advertising, it's presenting all the information in an accessible way. Mylar is surely familiar to more readers than PET film, and since it's the brand that's actually used, there's no reason in the world not to mention it, and two good reasons to do so. If you've got a source for the type and thickness of the Mylar, by all means add that information, but lacking that info isn't any kind of a reason to exclude other helpful information. Bottom line: not all mentions on Wikipedia of products by brand name are advertisements. The vast majority, in fact, are not, and are totally acceptable by consensus. I'm apparently at least the third editor to point this out to you - please take this as a suggestion to review your editing practices and the relevant policies, to avoid finding yourself in a more problematic dispute. — Swpb^{τ • c} 04:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]