![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am adding them as we speak. Macrhino 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't want to have to put an Template:POV tag on this article. Text should not be implicitly against Northpoint. For example:
In order to secure the licenses without auction, Northpoint hired a series of lobbying companies (Podesta Mattoon, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Daine Allbaugh, Livingston Group) to get congress to force the FCC chairman's hand. [1] MDS America on the other hand, was willing to go to auction and hired Alston & Bird to lobby against this. Their head lobbyist was Ex Senate majority leader Sen. Robert Dole.
is not acceptable. Each firm had its own agenda. Northpoint was also in a pitched lobbying battle with the massive lobbying power of the DBS companies. nadav 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think what is written here is "against or for" anyone. Northpoint's publically stated goal was to have the spectrum given to them by the FCC without auction. When FCC chairman Powell decided to have auctions, actually telling Kirkpatrick that Federal law prevewnted any decision but that one, Northpoint very publically lobbied Congress and gave out press releases stating their goal, to include an amendment to force the FCC to grant them spectrum. Even Sen. Frist wrote against this. It is neither negative nor positive. It is simply what Northpoint wanted. MDSA was willling to participate in auctions and did not think Northpoint should unilaterally be given this public resourse. How is that POV? This is simply factual. Unless one just assumes that getting the licenses without auction is bad. Northpoint certainly did not think so and the references are clear on that. They felt they were justified in asking for this. See here: http://www.sbca.com/government/spectrum.htm http://www.sbca.com/PublicAffairsdocs/092503_FT.pdf
regards 21:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.5.42 ( talk • contribs)
There should probably be more content about the DBS companies' angle, lobbying efforts, and court cases. nadav 23:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I am now trying to learn about the ORBIT Act, DBS Auction Order, and Northpoint and Compass v. FCC case. Apparantly, this case was one the few successes Northpoint had, since it anulled the FCC's interpretation of the ORBIT act that it used for its DBS Auction Order. Does anyone know what practical effect this case had? And how does it reconcile with Northpoint v. FCC, which said ORBIT does not bar a spectrum auction? Right now I'm still confused about this. nadav 01:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The MDS America article should link to this article somewhere. Perhaps one of your more familiar with the subject could find an appropriate spot? Russeasby 19:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Bhimaji 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The SCTV release is an old one. I am talking to SCTV to release another. SCTV opted not to buy the MDSI system for the reasons already discussed. Look at the press relese. It is from 2001. Then look at the contempt order. It states that MDSI is required to send a letter written by MDSA to SCTV telling SCTV that they can buy from MDSA because there is no contract between SCTV and MDSI
76.109.17.236
21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I do think that it's important to consider the relevance of spectrum ownership. Owning radio spectrum gives you an immense amount of control and influence as to which services are going to be offered, and where. I think that the marketplace and public policy impact of controlling spectrum across about 1/3 of the US by surface area (and owner of the largest number of DMAs) should be sufficient to make a company notable. If the article reads too much like a vanity article, then that's something that should be fixed. Russeasby, can you identify which parts you feel are inappropriate? Bhimaji 00:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
My opinion is that the company has only received notice in the sources as part of the DBS/FCC/Northpoint story over the licensing of MVDDS. I have yet to see any article that goes into any depth about the company for its own sake. nadav 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Representatives and employees of MDS America should make sure to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before participating. Note that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus is determined based on the arguments given. nadav 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to un-indent if the discussion gets too close to the edge of your screen. What you should more realistically worry about is that the interest of the topic has been exhausted. I think that User:Nadav1 has quite aptly summarized the policy in the area of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Since the topic of the MVDDS dispute has attracted a lot of attention, it's likely it will enjoy the full rigor of the official Wikipedia standards, even though there are many dusty corners where the standards have not yet been enforced. If you see undesirable stuff happening in the dusty corners, you are welcome to propose correction, for instance through WP:AFD. EdJohnston 18:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Here are references to MDSA outside of this dispute:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=7947
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BMD/is_81_8/ai_85180112
76.109.17.236 21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just received a request from User:nadav1 to close this straw poll. No admin has the right to close a poll as a poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it. The only exception is when an admin sees a consensus has been reached- which not the case here.
That said, personally speaking, the merge option sounds appropriate as both articles' content overlap (see Merging). Another important thing, is that due to my experience as a wikipedian, i personally see more valid arguments being said by the merge voters than by the other side. However, admins can only be decisive in a deletion process and never in a poll straw where no consensus has been reached. Polls are not binding and no policy governs them. I'd therefore suggest one of the following available options:
Poor Wikipedia Admin's! after removing MDSinternational and changing by MVDDS Dispute, you build clear and reliable info and sources but again you start another but still the same battle against the same guys: Machrino alias Mr Kirpatrick the CEO of MDSAMERICA (see Whois ) Or from Kirpatrick from home In Palm City see the IP adress location: IP address & IP location (76.109.17.236):
IP address info: IP address: 76.109.17.236 (copy) IP country: United States IP Address state: IP Address city: Palm City IP latitude: 27.118799 IP longitude: -80.366600 ISP: Comcast Cable Organization: Comcast Cable
You never can obtain neutrality and you never can have the right with no lies or truncated informations with this peoples.~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.206.63.250 ( talk) 09:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
Jean Claude, If you read carefully, you'll note that the user signing themselves with the IP 76.109.17.236 identified him or herself as an MDSA employee. I note that you don't seem to have identified your conflict of interest, or even signed your message - it had to be auto-signed by a bot. Just to clarify, I am not Kirk, though he is the CEO of my current employer. If anybody other than Jean Claude wishes me to prove this, I can oblige. Bhimaji 12:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Ed I reverted another vandal edit from 83.206.63.250 and a sockpuppet of jeanclauduc. I reverted to Nadav's last version. As well there is an addition to MDS America Talk page that purports to be from Bernard Picot, the Ex-CEO of Rapidwave Inc which no longer exists. MR.PICOT knows nothing about this and after reading it claims it was written by Mr. Ducasse. Maybe people start to see what we are up against. 76.109.17.236 09:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the above comments after they were altered by [83.206.63.250] 76.109.17.236 21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Why again MDSAmerica add new lies on this page?
If you are the "I am not Kirk, though he is the CEO of my current employer" You do not know any you are another Slave no more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.63.250 ( talk • contribs)
In a thread above, nadav wrote:
I'd like to make sure I understand what you were arguing. Is it your position that:
(We're starting from the same rules and the same facts; I'd like to figure out where our opinions part ways.)
Bhimaji 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, EdJohnston 21:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello all, I'm back from my short wikibreak. I'd like to ask someone that's familiar with this stuff to close the merge discussion per WP:MERGE#Closing/archive a proposed merger. Can we ask any of the admins that have been following some of this to do it? nadav 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible we could try to find a compromise among ourselves? Given the long history among a number of different articles, as well as confusing IP addresses and foreign language text, I think that we'd all likely be happier if we could work out an appropriate compromise rather than asking strangers to come in, understand everything, and then decide.
I'm sure that the MDSA marketing guys would love it if the MDSA article said we were perfect and the best in the world, etc. etc. Obviously, Wikipedia isn't an appropriate forum for such claims.
Personally, I would just like to have an article that references the fact that we do exist as a company, and tells people which Wikipedia articles they can go to for more information. I would actually prefer that it not contain PR-speak, since I think that the NPOV descriptions of the legal and regulatory foo speak for themselves and make us look appropriately good in an honest and objective way.
When dealing with articles about, say, WW-II battles, I think it's reasonable to choose top-level articles based purely on information content. However, in the case of people and organizations, I think that a combination of information and notability should be used. The battle of Midway is nothing but an event in a larger series of events that are fuzzily defined in terms of starting and ending. Organizations and people have clearly defined existence, and have some biographical information that is independent of their actions. When I read about something notable that somebody did, I want to know what else they did. If the person or organization's top-level entry redirects only into an article about one thing they did, I can't tell if that's all they've done or if nobody's gotten around to writing about what else they've done.
More concretely, I think that redirecting the MDSA article into MVDDS dispute will give people the wrong impression, and make them think that we probably don't exist anymore. Few people are likely to follow through to the MVDDS article and figure out that MDS also owns significant spectrum.
Getting directly to the question: Are there changes that could be made to the MDS America article that would make those in favor of merging amenable to keeping it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhimaji ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am adding them as we speak. Macrhino 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't want to have to put an Template:POV tag on this article. Text should not be implicitly against Northpoint. For example:
In order to secure the licenses without auction, Northpoint hired a series of lobbying companies (Podesta Mattoon, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Daine Allbaugh, Livingston Group) to get congress to force the FCC chairman's hand. [1] MDS America on the other hand, was willing to go to auction and hired Alston & Bird to lobby against this. Their head lobbyist was Ex Senate majority leader Sen. Robert Dole.
is not acceptable. Each firm had its own agenda. Northpoint was also in a pitched lobbying battle with the massive lobbying power of the DBS companies. nadav 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think what is written here is "against or for" anyone. Northpoint's publically stated goal was to have the spectrum given to them by the FCC without auction. When FCC chairman Powell decided to have auctions, actually telling Kirkpatrick that Federal law prevewnted any decision but that one, Northpoint very publically lobbied Congress and gave out press releases stating their goal, to include an amendment to force the FCC to grant them spectrum. Even Sen. Frist wrote against this. It is neither negative nor positive. It is simply what Northpoint wanted. MDSA was willling to participate in auctions and did not think Northpoint should unilaterally be given this public resourse. How is that POV? This is simply factual. Unless one just assumes that getting the licenses without auction is bad. Northpoint certainly did not think so and the references are clear on that. They felt they were justified in asking for this. See here: http://www.sbca.com/government/spectrum.htm http://www.sbca.com/PublicAffairsdocs/092503_FT.pdf
regards 21:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.5.42 ( talk • contribs)
There should probably be more content about the DBS companies' angle, lobbying efforts, and court cases. nadav 23:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I am now trying to learn about the ORBIT Act, DBS Auction Order, and Northpoint and Compass v. FCC case. Apparantly, this case was one the few successes Northpoint had, since it anulled the FCC's interpretation of the ORBIT act that it used for its DBS Auction Order. Does anyone know what practical effect this case had? And how does it reconcile with Northpoint v. FCC, which said ORBIT does not bar a spectrum auction? Right now I'm still confused about this. nadav 01:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The MDS America article should link to this article somewhere. Perhaps one of your more familiar with the subject could find an appropriate spot? Russeasby 19:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Bhimaji 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The SCTV release is an old one. I am talking to SCTV to release another. SCTV opted not to buy the MDSI system for the reasons already discussed. Look at the press relese. It is from 2001. Then look at the contempt order. It states that MDSI is required to send a letter written by MDSA to SCTV telling SCTV that they can buy from MDSA because there is no contract between SCTV and MDSI
76.109.17.236
21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I do think that it's important to consider the relevance of spectrum ownership. Owning radio spectrum gives you an immense amount of control and influence as to which services are going to be offered, and where. I think that the marketplace and public policy impact of controlling spectrum across about 1/3 of the US by surface area (and owner of the largest number of DMAs) should be sufficient to make a company notable. If the article reads too much like a vanity article, then that's something that should be fixed. Russeasby, can you identify which parts you feel are inappropriate? Bhimaji 00:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
My opinion is that the company has only received notice in the sources as part of the DBS/FCC/Northpoint story over the licensing of MVDDS. I have yet to see any article that goes into any depth about the company for its own sake. nadav 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Representatives and employees of MDS America should make sure to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before participating. Note that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus is determined based on the arguments given. nadav 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to un-indent if the discussion gets too close to the edge of your screen. What you should more realistically worry about is that the interest of the topic has been exhausted. I think that User:Nadav1 has quite aptly summarized the policy in the area of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Since the topic of the MVDDS dispute has attracted a lot of attention, it's likely it will enjoy the full rigor of the official Wikipedia standards, even though there are many dusty corners where the standards have not yet been enforced. If you see undesirable stuff happening in the dusty corners, you are welcome to propose correction, for instance through WP:AFD. EdJohnston 18:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Here are references to MDSA outside of this dispute:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=7947
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BMD/is_81_8/ai_85180112
76.109.17.236 21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just received a request from User:nadav1 to close this straw poll. No admin has the right to close a poll as a poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it. The only exception is when an admin sees a consensus has been reached- which not the case here.
That said, personally speaking, the merge option sounds appropriate as both articles' content overlap (see Merging). Another important thing, is that due to my experience as a wikipedian, i personally see more valid arguments being said by the merge voters than by the other side. However, admins can only be decisive in a deletion process and never in a poll straw where no consensus has been reached. Polls are not binding and no policy governs them. I'd therefore suggest one of the following available options:
Poor Wikipedia Admin's! after removing MDSinternational and changing by MVDDS Dispute, you build clear and reliable info and sources but again you start another but still the same battle against the same guys: Machrino alias Mr Kirpatrick the CEO of MDSAMERICA (see Whois ) Or from Kirpatrick from home In Palm City see the IP adress location: IP address & IP location (76.109.17.236):
IP address info: IP address: 76.109.17.236 (copy) IP country: United States IP Address state: IP Address city: Palm City IP latitude: 27.118799 IP longitude: -80.366600 ISP: Comcast Cable Organization: Comcast Cable
You never can obtain neutrality and you never can have the right with no lies or truncated informations with this peoples.~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.206.63.250 ( talk) 09:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
Jean Claude, If you read carefully, you'll note that the user signing themselves with the IP 76.109.17.236 identified him or herself as an MDSA employee. I note that you don't seem to have identified your conflict of interest, or even signed your message - it had to be auto-signed by a bot. Just to clarify, I am not Kirk, though he is the CEO of my current employer. If anybody other than Jean Claude wishes me to prove this, I can oblige. Bhimaji 12:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Ed I reverted another vandal edit from 83.206.63.250 and a sockpuppet of jeanclauduc. I reverted to Nadav's last version. As well there is an addition to MDS America Talk page that purports to be from Bernard Picot, the Ex-CEO of Rapidwave Inc which no longer exists. MR.PICOT knows nothing about this and after reading it claims it was written by Mr. Ducasse. Maybe people start to see what we are up against. 76.109.17.236 09:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the above comments after they were altered by [83.206.63.250] 76.109.17.236 21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Why again MDSAmerica add new lies on this page?
If you are the "I am not Kirk, though he is the CEO of my current employer" You do not know any you are another Slave no more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.63.250 ( talk • contribs)
In a thread above, nadav wrote:
I'd like to make sure I understand what you were arguing. Is it your position that:
(We're starting from the same rules and the same facts; I'd like to figure out where our opinions part ways.)
Bhimaji 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, EdJohnston 21:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello all, I'm back from my short wikibreak. I'd like to ask someone that's familiar with this stuff to close the merge discussion per WP:MERGE#Closing/archive a proposed merger. Can we ask any of the admins that have been following some of this to do it? nadav 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible we could try to find a compromise among ourselves? Given the long history among a number of different articles, as well as confusing IP addresses and foreign language text, I think that we'd all likely be happier if we could work out an appropriate compromise rather than asking strangers to come in, understand everything, and then decide.
I'm sure that the MDSA marketing guys would love it if the MDSA article said we were perfect and the best in the world, etc. etc. Obviously, Wikipedia isn't an appropriate forum for such claims.
Personally, I would just like to have an article that references the fact that we do exist as a company, and tells people which Wikipedia articles they can go to for more information. I would actually prefer that it not contain PR-speak, since I think that the NPOV descriptions of the legal and regulatory foo speak for themselves and make us look appropriately good in an honest and objective way.
When dealing with articles about, say, WW-II battles, I think it's reasonable to choose top-level articles based purely on information content. However, in the case of people and organizations, I think that a combination of information and notability should be used. The battle of Midway is nothing but an event in a larger series of events that are fuzzily defined in terms of starting and ending. Organizations and people have clearly defined existence, and have some biographical information that is independent of their actions. When I read about something notable that somebody did, I want to know what else they did. If the person or organization's top-level entry redirects only into an article about one thing they did, I can't tell if that's all they've done or if nobody's gotten around to writing about what else they've done.
More concretely, I think that redirecting the MDSA article into MVDDS dispute will give people the wrong impression, and make them think that we probably don't exist anymore. Few people are likely to follow through to the MVDDS article and figure out that MDS also owns significant spectrum.
Getting directly to the question: Are there changes that could be made to the MDS America article that would make those in favor of merging amenable to keeping it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhimaji ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC).