Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/MDS International
Impartiality
Writing a "negative" article does not have to be an attack. The simple fact that the company in question in being "held in contempt" should at least be somewhat of an indication. Does Wikipedia consider the Contempt Ruling to be an "attack" by the Judge?
I do not believe that ShellBabelfish is impartial. Again, the first article can only be considered an "attack" piece if the information was incorrect. The original order, issued by a Federal Judge in Michigan, holding this company in Contempt was linked to in the article. Wikipedia admins continue to revert this article to one that, in spirit, violates an agreement and a contempt order. All admins here have access to that order and have had for sometime. The press articles that are linked do not in anyway substantiate the comments that now appear on wikipedia in violation of that agreement. There is a reason that this company was held in contempt. This company was covered in the telecom news and is using that coverage to abrogate a court order. I believe that Shell is now at the point of active assistance.
I was blocked from even editing this page due to the violations of the 3rr. I of course was aware of this rule but seeing as jeanclauduc has reverted the page 6 times previously as well as blanked the page numerous time, I assumed that Wikipedia was not taking this seriously. for example:
From jeanclauduc's talk page placed there on the 28th (yesterday) AFTER I was blocked by Shell WITHOUT WARNING. Remember that there are many reverts to this article.
Please review Wikipedia policies.
While I understand your concern in being sure that the article about your company does not contain misinformation, you'll still need to edit within Wikipedia policy. Some things you may wish to review: WP:OWN - No one editor owns a Wikipedia article; subjects of articles do not have sole control. WP:COI - Guidelines for editing articles where you may have a conflict of interest. WP:3RR - No more than three reverts should be done on an article in 24 hours. Also, when you get a chance, please take a look through all of the policies: Wikipedia:List of policies If you have any questions or anything I can help you with, please let me know. Shell babelfish 01:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism by jeanclaudeduc:
08:57, 12 March 2007 NMChico24 (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted 2 edits by 83.206.63.250 to last revision by WizardOfWor. (TW))
10:25, 12 March 2007 MartinBot (Talk | contribs) m (BOT - rv 83.206.63.250 (talk) to last version by AntiVandalBot)
10:25, 12 March 2007 83.206.63.250 (Talk) (→Technology)
09:11, 12 March 2007 AntiVandalBot (Talk | contribs) m (BOT - rv 83.206.63.250 (talk) to last version by MartinBot)
09:11, 12 March 2007 83.206.63.250 (Talk) (→Paper companies)
09:11, 12 March 2007 MartinBot (Talk | contribs) m (BOT - rv 83.206.63.250 (talk) to last version by AntiVandalBot)
09:10, 12 March 2007 83.206.63.250 (Talk) (→Contempt of Court Ruling)
09:10, 12 March 2007 AntiVandalBot (Talk | contribs) m (BOT - rv 83.206.63.250 (talk) to last version by Soumyasch)
As jeanclauduc:
Recieved a warning This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -- Gogo Dodo 22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
11:40, 12 March 2007 (hist) (diff) MDS America (←Blanked the page)
12:20, 12 March 2007 (hist) (diff) MDS International (←Blanked the page)
12:07, 12 March 2007 (hist) (diff) MDS America (←Blanked the page)
12:06, 12 March 2007 (hist) (diff) MDS International (←Blanked the page)
11:42, 12 March 2007 (hist) (diff) MDS International (←Blanked the page)
18:07, 24 March 2007 (hist) (diff) MDS International (←Blanked the page)
11:33, 12 March 2007 (hist) (diff) MDS International (→Paper companies)
21:55, 27 March 2007 Jeanclauduc (Talk | contribs) (→History - see ITU)
AS well
Placed on the talk page for MDS International:
Incidentally, someone removed {{unreferenced}} {{notability}} tags from the article. As of now, I'm not sure the article fully explains why this 6-person company making 10,000 EUR/year is encyclopedically notable in the first place. Weregerbil 11:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
So I made a case for the notability based on the court case. However Admins OVERRULED that. Accpting that I put the article up for deletion on the NOTIBILITY guidelines as I understood them. Shell however states above
Nominator posted this AfD after being unsuccessful at keeping article in his preferred version, which included the attacks and misinformation. Might be worth a note that the nominator also uploaded a company logo for the article claiming self-public domain as the license (obviously, this has been deleted).
There are two imliplied comments here. Nominator nominated this because (1 )Nomintor could not use this as an attack vehicle and (2) nominator uploaded a file that obviously he did not create and this is a simple logo that could be replicated in Photoshop in two minutes. Use of self created LOGOs are fair use under Wikipedia guidelines or did I misunderstand? If I marked it as self-created rather than "fair use" does this impinge my motives? What is the significance of mentioning this?
Take another example- From my Talk Page -Shell informing me:
Editors on Wikipedia do not own articles they create. The other person reverting the text has been warned as well and hopefully will cease the edit warring. It appears that both of you have a conflict of interest in editing the article and should not be doing so unless you're correcting factual data....(emphasis added) Shell babelfish 04:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
OK I broke the rule, but no warnings appear on my talk page, remebering that "the other person" mentioned above has two previous warnings , we look at the third "warning" referenced above remembering that I have been blocked by Shell without previous warnings of any type:
While I understand your concern in being sure that the article about your company does not contain misinformation, you'll still need to edit within Wikipedia policy. Some things you may wish to review:
*[[WP:OWN]] - No one editor owns a Wikipedia article; subjects of articles do not have sole control.<br /> *[[WP:COI]] - Guidelines for editing articles where you may have a conflict of interest.<br /> *[[WP:3RR]] - No more than three reverts should be done on an article in 24 hours. Also, when you get a chance, please take a look through all of the policies: [[Wikipedia:List of policies]]
If you have any questions or anything I can help you with, please let me know. Shell babelfish 01:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
and this AFTER "the other person" remomved the AfD marker 4 times.
I could go on with numerous incidents on other pages. So far there has not been pointed out a single incidence of misinformation in the original article other than, "I reviewed the articles and it doesn't seem to support..." I understand that wikipedia admins are volunteers and unpaid but facilitating a swindler is careless. Look at the front page of www.mds.fr. It states plainly:
Serving the entire world except installations in the United States, Canada, and Mexico
Yet MVDDS systems that are "advertised" now in the MDS International Wikipedia page are ONLY FOR THE US.
Perhaps of the admins here were a little more concerned about the information provided, the "edit war" would become easy to fix. It certainly won't happen by treating people the same regardless if try to live by the rules or if they, as jeanclauduc has done, threaten the admins with a lawsuit for "helping their boyfriend." I count no less than four legal threats.WizardOfWor 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
My Two Cents
If this is an "edit war" as the ADMIN seems to claim, why would one party be blocked without warning for placing sourced, factual material on your site while the other party keeps blanking the opposing party's page without receiving retribution from Wikipedia? It seems to suggest an uneven application of the rules. Maybe this type of subjective rules interpretation is the reason my professor will not accept Wikipedia as a source. I also fail to see how the mention of such facts concerning this "NOTIBILE" company's agreement not to do business in North America could be considered as not being a relevant fact for an encyclopedia that is so often viewed by North American Internet users. I also can't comprehend how court orders concerning this company, and its ability to do business in the United States, is not relevant information. I for one would not be happy with Wikipedia if I researched MDS International using Wikipedia and later found that ADMINS on the site blocked truthful information because they had chosen a side in this “edit war” and exercised such uneven application of its rules; information that would have caused me to take a different course of action if I had known the blocked content. 209.214.214.3 20:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)