| Revision as of 20:12, 7 September 2016 editEnPassant (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users8,632 edits Rescinded in 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Obsolete_sanctions← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:00, 10 January 2025 edit undoAidan9382-Bot (talk | contribs)Bots9,282 editsm Fixed archive location for Lowercase Sigmabot III (More info - Report bot issues) |
| (48 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Companies |importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low |UT=yes |UT-importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Retailing |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Websites |importance=Low |computing-importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cryptocurrency |importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
| Line 7: |
Line 15: |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Bill Gates/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Beyond, Inc./Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class=GA}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Companies|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=Low|UT=yes|UT-importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Retailing|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Websites|class=B|importance=Low|computing-importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Numismatics |class=B |importance=low |cryptocurrency=Yes |cryptocurrency-importance=low }} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archive box|archivelist=/archivelist|auto=long}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Article probation== |
|
|
Restrictions...Editors are directed: |
|
|
:(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account; |
|
|
:(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration; |
|
|
:(C) To edit in accordance with all Misplaced Pages policies and to refrain from any form of ] concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and |
|
|
:(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page. |
|
|
''Do not remove this notice'' <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
==O.co== |
|
|
|
|
|
Why does this redirect here from Overstock.com? The company is STILL Overstock.com. Their URL is both O.CO and Overstock.com. Doesn't matter how much they rebrand.. until their company files paperwork as O.CO you can't list them as O.CO. This is asinine ] (]) 17:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
DOES NO ONE CARE? THE COMPANY IS OVERSTOCK.COM PEOPLE!!!!! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Gradient lawsuit== |
|
|
In reporting the outcome of a lawsuit, fairness dictates that you be as even handed as possible. Reporting the home town paper's version of it's CEO's lawsuit needs to be balanced by the more skeptical reaction of a New York Times columnist of outstanding reputation.--] (]) 00:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:The information is sourced to Reuters. That it happens to be also sourced to the SLT is just to establish that it's widely reported. I think your quote introduced undue weight, what I added was factual, without commentary (which was quoted and which I could have included...) I'll be reverting it on that basis but feel free to add something back which is a balanced set of quotes, not just one negative. ++]: ]/] 17:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The ''Salt Lake Tribune'' and ''Deseret News'' have probably published more words about the "Sith Lord" than any two papers in the world. I think it's insulting to call them a biased source; I did a quick search to be sure, and found an appropriately skeptical 2100 word article by Bob Mims May 6, 2006 that concludes with this line: "Adds Weiss]]: 'It is a disgrace that regulators take these people seriously, and I believe that the funding and tactics of these people should be investigated.'" |
|
|
:Most sources seem to think this was some kind of win for Overstock.com, even though the settlement is totally opaque. Here, for example, is the the well-respected They conclude that Gradient didn't want to face a jury. That could be, or it could have been settled for mere nuisance value (maybe $0). I say we just stick to the facts. ] '']'' 19:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Which sources feel it is a win for Overstock? The only analysis I see is from a distinguished columnist for the New York Times Nocera, whose deft analysis of the lawsuit has been removed from this article on a shoddy pretext. I have no idea what the "Sith Lord" has to do with any of this, or whether the Salt Lake Tribune is a good or bad publication. What matters is that the New York Times analysed this lawsuit settlement and found it to be a big nothing. Removing it skews the article and does a disservice to your readers. Nocera was executive editor of Fortune and was a Pulitzer finalist. If he doesn't meet your criteria for inclusion then there is something wrong with your criteria. I personally doubt that it doesn't meet your criteria.--] (]) 14:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I added a Fortune article. I think it is essential to have both sides of the story in reporting litigation.--] (]) 15:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If you'd like to include the article, you would have to paraphrase what it says. Looking through, I see this article stated: |
|
|
::::''Gradient also said it regrets describing Overstock's accounting policies as being outside of generally accepted accounting procedures, or GAAP, which is traditionally a red flag for securities analysts. ... In turn, Overstock said it will now press ahead on its case against Copper River.'' |
|
|
:::I have no problem noting if Overstock conceded something or Gradient held on to something, but this should presumably be something that has been noted prominently, that we can then add and source. If Nocera said that they did not admit to the underlying claims, I would think that could be added. ] (]) 20:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have ]'s addition of an analysis quote by lawyers. What I added was a factual reporting of settlement, and of what Gradient admitted, as released in Reuters. People keep trying to add things that put this partial settlement in a negative light. That suffers from an ]. If you wish to have the article say more about this topic, you'll have to find quotes that present all sides. For example, if you include statements from Gradient, or from Copper River you'll need to also include statements from Overstock rebutting them. Best to just leave it all out, go with a purely factual presentation in this area and let the reader draw their own conclusions. I strongly suggest against a repeat insertion of such material without gaining consensus here on the the talk page first. Which does not at this time exist. I further note that this article is on probation so fiddling about will not be looked at kindly. ++]: ]/] 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:<s>John Nevard undid my reversion without a word of explanation. That's unacceptable. Talk it through here and gain consensus for this change. Thanks. ++]: ]/] 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
::That is incorrect, I acted hastily, and I apologise. In fact he took my advice and the material inserted the second time is not the same as the first, and it is indeed balanced. Thanks, and apologies for the confusion. I was fooled by the lack of the edit summary. I reverted myself back, so the article is as John's second edit again... ++]: ]/] 00:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Restating financials == |
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure if this is just a blip or if it warrants inclusion in the article, but it seems to have been covered several places. Last week Overstock restated its earnings from 2003 through the second quarter of 2008; SVP of Finance David Chidester cited problems with the implementation of their ERP system that caused mistakes in accounting for customer refunds and order cancellations. References would be: {{cite news|title=Overstock's ERP Woes Force It to Restate Results|author=Kanaracus,Chris|publisher=IDG News Service|date=Novemeber 2, 2008}} (carried in NYT and Computerworld) and {{cite news|title=Overstock posts smaller loss, to restate results|author=Sage, Alexandria|publisher=Reuters|date=Oct 24, 2008}}; there was also a mention in AP but I don't have the full ref for that at the moment. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">] <sup>]</sup></font> 05:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I had just edited the revenue figures on October 7, 2008 to include the 2007 numbers. I used Yahoo finance as the reference. Since Yahoo Finance has adjusted their reported revenue numbers for Overstock from $760 million to $867 million, I would think we would least edit the numbers to match the reference. ] 20:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There's a in national newspapers related to their previous spates of readjustment of previously reported earnings.] (]) 01:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bad Redirect from Antisocialmedia Article? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I came to Misplaced Pages looking for information about "AntiSocialMedia" because it was mentioned in an article about Misplaced Pages, here . Wondering who or what this organization is, I searched the wiki, and came upon . The redirect is for ], but the section does not exist and there is nothing on the Overstock article that even talks about AntiSocialMedia. In other words, having searched for AntiSocialMedia, I am instead delivered to an article that tells me nothing about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
My question is, is this redirect accomplishing anything useful? And if not, what can be done about it? Is it ok to add information about AntiSocialMedia to the Overstock article? Or should the redirect be removed and a separate article created? |
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt I personally would have time to devote to editing such an article, because I don't even know about the controversy and I'm unlikely to in the near future, but I '''would''' like to prevent another user from having to repeat my futile search/redirect experience. Thanks, |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 14:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I ended up nominating the redirect for deletion ]. ] (]) 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Unprotection?== |
|
|
Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --] 19:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over this article based on ], so any change to the protection will be dependent on support from or appeal to the Committee. Regards, ] 19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is law journal article that mentions Overstock.com several times, in reference to its litigation. It doesn't seem central to the article such as to warrant placing in your references section, but editors can draw upon it if desired as a resource: http://www1.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawbusiness/issues/uploads/5-1/NYB103.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
== Huge number of customer complaints on consumer affairs website == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/online/overstock.html |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.my3cents.com/search.cgi?criteria=overstock.com |
|
|
|
|
|
Hundreds of customer complaints on multiple websites CAN'T just be a "fluke". It looks like they're a rip-off company, yet this company only mentions IPO lawsuits. Is someone at Overstock censoring this article???? ] (]) 06:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It _is_ odd to see Overstock so lauded on this page with no mention of the fact that its reputation among shoppers is so lousy (price switching, item switching, malware issues, horrid customer service, etc.). ] (]) 14:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cottonwood Heights vs. SLC == |
|
|
|
|
|
There was a reference at the bottom that said Overstock lists themselves as Salt Lake City "even though they're in Cottonwood Heights, several miles south of Salt Lake." Actually Cottonwood Heights was incorporated, out of Salt Lake, in 2004. So it's not that Overstock moved or is pretending it's in SLC--it's that their postal address was renamed. Overstock's heyday was entirely served from two offices in Salt Lake, and then the locations themselves changed names. I changed the wording to refelect that. (I didn't mention that their second address is also in SLC, not West Valley.) Check Google Maps on both points...--] (]) 19:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Cottonwood Heights was not incorporated “out of” Salt Lake City (that implies that the area “seceded” from Salt Lake City, or that Salt Lake City de-annexed the area, upon which it was then available to be incorporated into another city). No, the area was an unincorporated portion of ] from the time of the county’s founding in 1850 until 2005 (not 2004), when the City of Cottonwood Heights was incorporated. For purposes of mailing addresses, the U.S. Postal Service assigned the ZIP code encompassing the area (84121) the place name “Salt Lake City” - a postal designation. Because of this, it is/was easy to assume that the area is/was in Salt Lake City, even though it is not, was not and never has been. Since the incorporation of Cottonwood Heights, the U.S. Postal Service has added “Cottonwood Heights” as an acceptable place name for addresses in the ZIP code 84121. So, if Overstock continues to use “Salt Lake City” in its address - which it apparently is doing - then yes, it *is* pretending to be in Salt Lake City. It’s in Cottonwood Heights - which, incidentally, is a name that was used to refer to the area even before it was incorporated as a city; thus, Overstock has always been in Cottonwood Heights. Period. ] (]) 23:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::This is not unusual. My address is the nearby city, per the post office designation, even though I'm several miles from the border. It's because the small town where I live cannot handle the volume of mail, so the city takes the load. Similarly my workplace says "Charlotte" even though it's in a neighboring town. And then there's Compaq Computer which says "Houston" but their campus is located ~20 miles away. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Mail volume has '''absolutely nothing''' to do with this. Each ZIP code has more or less the same capacity for handling mail. If the post office associated with a particular ZIP code cannot handle the volume of mail, the USPS will create a new ZIP code (though with the overall decline of mail volumes, this is becoming an increasingly rare event). The reason for confusions such as this is the simple fact that the USPS does not conform the boundaries of ZIP codes to municipal boundaries. To add insult to this injury, the USPS then designates only one “default” place name per ZIP code, which ends up being assumed as the city in which every address in that ZIP code is located, even if the ZIP code is actually miles and miles away from the city whose name it has been assigned. |
|
|
:Since the USPS shows no sign of changing its policies and methodologies, the confusion will continue. Fortunately, with Google maps (maps.google.com) city boundaries can now be easily called up (in the past, one would have to consult and compare inconsistent and often outdated sources) and the actual city that an address is located in can be quickly confirmed. ] (]) 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Query== |
|
|
The section on short selling does not correspond with what I have seen Byrne say in contemporary televiosn interview clips. The impression I received was that the Overstock and associated case were based on claims of abusive shorting to manipulate the market coupled with media smears based on mendacious analysis by a widely used analysis firm. Byrne specifically stated that naked shorting was not being claimed in these cases, but that he believed it was a systemic market problem which posed stability risks to the American economy. Can anyone find reliable cites either way? ''] ]'', <small>22:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
|
==Name change== |
|
|
It seems Overstock is abandoning O.co, as their website now considers o.co a "shortcut". Should the article's title be changed? ] (]) 12:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Do publications meniton it as overstock or as o.co? If it's overstock.com, then I agree we should change it. A simple move of the webpage, IMO, is not enough. ] (]) 19:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Particularly the second article from CNET: . ] (]) 03:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't think we should change it. According to CNET article, Overstock is changing their local name and website name back to Overstock, but keeping O.co for international and mobile things. and they will still be working to move to O.co fully, but slower than they have been going. So, because they are still internationally calling themselves O.co and they are going to be working toward that name, we should probably keep it there. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 07:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{old move|date=3 January 2025|from=Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer)|destination=Beyond, Inc.|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1267050190#Requested move 3 January 2025}} |
|
== Google Penalty == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== where is the info from the Bed Bath Beyond article? == |
|
The reason behind the Google penalty was misstated in the Salt Lake Tribune article cited by John Nevard. The real reason was explained correctly by the Wall Street Journal and most every other source when it happened. . To quote: ''The incident, according to Overstock, stemmed in part from its practice of encouraging websites of colleges and universities to post links to Overstock pages so that students and faculty could receive discounts on the shopping site. Overstock said it discontinued the program on Feb. 10, before hearing from Google, but said some university webmasters have been slow to remove the links.'' <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:The solution is not to remove the entire segment, as you did, but to attribute one version to the AP and add the Wall Street Journal account. We can't just ignore the AP. If the AP runs a correction, we can remove it. The two accounts are not mutually exclusive. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overstock.com was operating before it bought Bed Bath Beyond assets om 6/23/2023: archive.ph//g60n2 I think that should be made clear. |
|
== Founder Robert Brazell == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There should be a paragraph further down the article that explains that. BBB was a successful company so to have that article page trashed I think is wrong. |
|
I guess this is the place to get opinions of others, right? |
|
|
|
] (]) 09:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
I know from my time with the company way back that Robert Brazell never worked a day for Overstock.com itself. He ran a company that went bankrupt and which was acquired and turned into Overstock.com. It wasn't even the same kind of business. It's odd to see Brazell mentioned in the opening sentence of this piece. It feels like it doesn't fit. Maybe someone (myself included) should create a piece on Brazell or his defunct company, but I'd suggest removing it here. But before doing that I thought I'd ask for some feedback. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I would be in favor of a separate article about the now closed former brick and mortar retailer BBB. I assume could be reconstructed from archives, perhaps as noted above. I SEE that there is a separate article differentiating the BBB "Inc" from BBB online. Does that already incorporate the archived material sufficiently? I agree the point of referring to that, perhaps in introductory materials. ] (]) 14:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Bitcoin == |
|
|
|
::I see these issues are largely already taken care of. How do I delete this comment? ] (]) 14:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Talk pages == |
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Overstock.com&diff=590139333&oldid=590138799#Bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The articles titled ] (aka ]) and ] are about different companies, but {{-r|Talk:Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer)}} redirects to here (Talk:Bed Bath & Beyond). I don't know the topic well enough to work out which comments on this talk page, and its ], apply to which company. Please can a subject expert sort them out so each article has its own talk page as normal? ] (]) 22:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
There seems to be an edit war going on over the section about ]. Let's discuss why the section should or should not be included. <span style="color:#4CBB17">--Posted by</span> ] <small>]</small> at 02:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:@20:35, 11 October 2023 {{U|162 etc.}} moved page ] to ] over redirect (No consensus to make this the primary topic.) |
|
: Should be included because it's a notable event covered by . – ] (]) 02:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:@22:32, 11 October 2023 {{U|Estar8806}} moved page ] to ] (Requested by {{U|162 etc.}} at ]: Undiscussed. This has been bounced around a few times, but should stay primary topic until a discussion happens) |
|
: So far, the anonymous reverter failed to show up in this consensus discussion. So all we have to go on is their , which is: ''" No one in the real world gives a shit about Bitcoins and no one cares about Overstock"''. Given ample mainstream media coverage as shown previously, both claims are factually incorrect. So I'll now go ahead and restore the section. If the anonymous reverter still wants it removed, the onus is now on them to come up with a properly argued motivation. – ] (]) 15:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:@12:56, 12 October 2023 {{no ping|Jesse Viviano}} moved page ] to ] over redirect (Follow the moved article) |
|
::In any case, this is the article about Overstock.com, precisely the place where this stuff belongs. People who genuinely do not care about Overstock (which included me until 10 min ago) would not come here and therefore don't mind. ] (]) 11:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:@12:58, 12 October 2023 {{no ping|Jesse Viviano}} moved page ] to ] (Follow the moved article.) |
|
|
:Appears to be sorted out now. Fortunately we still have a handful of competent admins who can clean up after incompetent page movers. – ] (]) 03:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sounds a bit like an ] but a deserved one at that. Don't know how that page got moved without the talk, same thing happened at ] around the same time (I can't possibly think of how I would've unchecked move associated talk, but I digress). Glad there are "competent" admins who can clean up. Though I resent the implication of "incompetence" from taking an incident or two as one's entire track record, this certainly would've warranted a ]. ] (]) ] 03:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{reply to|Estar8806}} see ]. Part of the problem is with the community kicking out old administrators because they have become "out-of-touch" and are unfamiliar with current practices and recent changes, like say, a bug that was first reported in 2007 that the developers say is a desired feature, not a bug, and have made a "low" priority – meaning, if ya want it done, ya gotta do it urself! So page movers need to be aware of this bug, and manually work around it, until it's fixed. Don't take this personally – you are one of many, some of whom are administrators! ] (]) 13:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@] I appreciate this. I appreciate you pointing the bug out, I was totally unaware of it and completely confused. Thank you for clearing up that confusion. ] (]) ] 17:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Move discussion in progress == |
|
== Arbitration Motion == |
|
|
The Arbitration Committee are proposing to remove sanctions related to this topic area which appear to be no longer required. Details of the proposal are at ] where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Bed Bath & Beyond#Requested move 12 October 2023 crosspost --> —] 13:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC) |
|
== External links modified == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 3 January 2025 == |
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: |
|
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] '''after''' discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629044437/http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Overstock-adds-RICO-claim-to-apf-3448406367.html to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Overstock-adds-RICO-claim-to-apf-3448406367.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] 14:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know. |
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Beyond, Inc.}} – Reposting malformed request on behalf of ], with the following rationale: "Beyond is now parent to Bed Bath Beyond and the relaunched Overstock, so it's not doing business as just Bed Bath and Beyond." ] (]) 04:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Move to ]''' This article is mainly about the company. It now operates two different online stores, Bed Bath & Beyond and Overstock. It does not talk enough about either of the stores for them to be separated. However, having both stores under the same company makes naming the article after one of them a bit problematic. ] (]) 13:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 00:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{Aye}} '''Support a move to ]''' for the reasons above. ] ] 16:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
== Non-Neutral and Undue == |
|
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
This article flagrantly violates WP:UNDUE, and as such is non NPOV. It appears that around half of it deals exclusively with lawsuits, the former CEOs campaign against naket short selling, etc. and ultimately it says very little about the company's business model or anything else to do with the actual company itself. ] (]) 20:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> |
Overstock.com was operating before it bought Bed Bath Beyond assets om 6/23/2023: archive.ph//g60n2 I think that should be made clear.
.svg){kind=icon}
Y Support a move to Beyond, Inc. for the reasons above. Bailmoney27 16:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)