This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
.eco article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE. Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on 2021-02-11 by Davidwr.
|
An editor has repeatedly added material which I consider irrelevant. I have repeatedly removed it. Someone has to hit "pause" on this slow-moving edit war, so I will.
In his most recent edit, the editor used an edit summary of re-Inserted the "only" truth - .ECO® registration 3716170, 5851826, 5813887 and 6220615 are federally registered trademarks of planet .ECO LLC. Can someone please provide any evidence supporting the claim Big Room won the rights through a community application and has been delegated the registry operator of .ECO? If this can not be done, why is it being reported?
I think this is best resolved by deciding what is the purpose of this page?
Is the purpose of this page to describe the top-level internet domain listed on List of Internet top-level domains or something else?
If it is "something else" then is that "something else" notable? If it is the top-level internet domain, is the top-level internet domain notable? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 17:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Someone once said people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
To the extent that this page contradicts information from ICANN, currently available at https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/eco-2016-07-08-en linked to from https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries-agreements-en, it should be changed.
The ICANN page was last checked a few minutes ago and should be considered authoritative as of that date. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC) (fixed spelling. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 20:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
@ Davidwr: - In further research, I now understand that Planet.ECO LLC was one of the other unsuccessful bidders for .ECO. During the expansion of "new generic TLDs (newgTLDs)" over the past years, ICANN had multiple proposed TLDs where several different organizations applied to operate the domain. ICANN went through an extensive process that resulted in the TLD being awarded to one entity to operate. Perhaps to reflect this situation, a History section could be added as was done on the .amazon page (also a disputed TLD). That would allow some text about the dispute from Planet.ECO LLC to be added to the page. It would of course need to have text from reliable sources. - Dyork ( talk) 03:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
JWatTheDotECO ( talk) 04:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Your edit summary to
this edit says Dear David – Our Wikipedia contributions are guided by US Law, rules and regulations. It is interesting Big Room has no legal basis nor trademark right, yet you perceive they have superior rights. You are incorrect, bias and arbitrarily removing properly cited facts regarding “.eco”. Can you please guide me to any law, rule or regulation that supports your belief that a non-government entity delegated “.eco” rights to foreign company, Big Room? cc: Rachel Stallman, Paralegal, Wikimedia
First, I'm not sure what you meant by "cc: Rachel Stallman, Paralegal, Wikimedia" - she probably didn't see that edit unless you brought it to her attention. Second, the fact that the registrar of the .eco domain is in fact Big Room, and that as far as I know, no currently-in-force US law or court order has ordered ISPs in the United States to recognize any other entity as the registrar speaks volumes.
Also, the fact that you clearly have a "stake in the game" means you should not be editing this page directly. This is per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contributions disclosure. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 03:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear David
Thank you, TheDotECO ( talk) 04:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Davidwr: Sir:
JWatTheDotECO ( talk) 12:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You may explain how allowing Jacobmalthouse to have unfettered priveledge, since 2012, as “ignorance” on your part. I DISAGREE.On this I do have to backtrack: I should have said that I was personally ignorant of the matter until recently. Another editor added this user's name to the list of connected contributors a few months ago. As far as whether the other editors of this page were ignorant of his status or not, you are right, I should not have made that statement on their behalf. As for what to do about it: The most important thing, identifying him as being a "connected contributor," has been done (I will be changing all 3 names to "paid" shortly). I will be adding a "COI" template to the article itself shortly as well. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 13:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Davidwr:
JWatTheDotECO ( talk) 14:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you please guide me to any law, rule or regulationI've said what needs to be said on this topic.
Might you also be so kind to revert back the determinations you recently made in blocking my ability to post on the .ECO Wikipedia page?Wikipedia's long-standing guidelines and policies restrict the ability of editors who have a "conflict of interest," particularly those who are or expect to financially benefit from their edits, from directly editing an article. That you have a conflict of interest is obvious. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 15:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Davidwr:
JWatTheDotECO ( talk) 19:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the top-level domain ".eco" not the trademark ".ECO®" or the company behind that trademark, planet .ECO LLC.
Several authoritative sources, including ICANN [2] and IANA [3] clearly state that the top-level domain is under the sponsorship of a company called Big Room. Multiple domain registrars, in including Google, offer registration services for domains ending in .eco. It is unclear if planet .ECO LLC offers domain registration for domains ending in ".eco" but as far as ICANN and IANA are concerned, if any company has any status as "the official" anything related to the registration of these domains, it is Big Room, not planet .ECO. The fact that registered domains successfully resolve indicates that the top-level domain is active and currently registered domains are considered valid.
Now, as far as what company is "the official .ECO® registry" - that's irrelevant, since this page is about the .eco top-level domain, not ".ECO®". For what it's worth, it looks like planet .ECO sells domains ending in .earth, .green, .solar, .bio, as well as other endings like .com. However, I tried entering several random domain names ending in ".eco" and the result was the my choice of domain was not available. It could be just a temporary glitch, or maybe by some chance those very random names were actually already taken, but it is very unlikely that they would all be unavailable.
@ JWatTheDotECO: Personally, your "rush" is giving me a bad feeling about your motives for editing this article. If your goal is to make this article a better article about the topic that it is about, namely, the .eco top-level domain, your input is welcome, but if your purpose is to use the page to publicize other things, including .ECO®, you are in the wrong place and should stop immediately. Dyork's idea of having a history section is probably the right place for information about unsuccessful bidders. However, your conflict of interest still applies. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 20:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@ JWatTheDotECO: This article is about the current state of the .eco TLD as designated by ICANN. As shown on List_of_Internet_top-level_domains, there is an effort to document the current state of many of the current, active, ICANN-designated TLDs. This page therefore needs to returned to having text about the current, ICANN-designated operator of the .eco TLD. It is linked from the list of TLDs for this reason. As noted above on this Talk page, a History section can be created that can mention your unsuccessful bid to be the operator of the .eco domain. However, the main part of this page needs to be about the current operator. That is how these pages work. You are more than welcome to go and create a new Wikipedia article about the company Planet .ECO LLC through the Articles for Creation process. Please understand that articles need to be created using reliable sources and the people creating or editing articles need to NOT have any conflict of interest. You may find " What Wikipedia is not" to be useful in understanding the types of articles that we are seeking. Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia. - Dyork ( talk) 20:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
So you took down .ECO page and went back to advertising for Big Room Inc again. Last I recall, you did not notice the advertisement. I suppose different rules for different people. No verification needed and advertisement allowed for Big Room huh? In the case of the ".eco" delegation, you do understand ICANN "designates" and the government authorizes "delegation". Thus, you have not met Wikipedia rules, yet reverted back to what appears to still be merely conclusionary statement an ad.
You have not resolved the issue violating Wikipedia terms. My company is the trademark holder of .ECO for years Wikipedia has allowed Jacob Malthouse to refer to .eco as something that it is not. Worst, as a Wikipedia editor that has not obtained verification, you revert back to verbiage that is causing harm to our trademark. All I ask is for verifiable evidence that the claims you revert and post back onto Wikipedia are real.
Why are you advertising for Big Room Inc., is there a conflict I am unaware of?
As for your statement that I have a conflict, I disagree. While I do have an interest in protecting my trademark, I will not financially benefit by asking for Wikipedia to verify the statements, nor protecting the public and my trademark by providing information that is sourced back to the government, so that our trademark is protected.
In my opinion, this Big Room Fiasco is nothing but - Chicanery... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWatTheDotECO ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Due to the ongoing dispute about the page, I would like to add the following edit notice that will appear each time someone edits the page:
As of early 2021 there is an ongoing dispute regarding what, if any, information about domain registries should be included in the article. Please obtain WP:Consensus on the talk page before adding potentially controversial material. |
I'll wait at least 3 days before adding any "edit notice" to allow time for discussion.
An example edit notice can be found at User talk:Davidwr/Editnotice. It appears above the wiki-text when you edit or add to my talk page, User talk:Davidwr. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Jacobmalthouse: Based on your most recent reversion, I assume you object to the "bare-bones" version I made.
Earlier this year, I asked for input from people at WikiProject Internet ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Internet#.eco). That didn't get much of a response.
I see three possible solutions:
Are you willing to do the first one? If not, I will likely go to one of the last two, since the 2nd probably will fail and the 3rd has essentially already been done. If you are not willing to do the first one, do you think an RFC or asking for dispute resolution will be more successful in getting an article that is useful to Wikipedia and its readers?
Another option is to revert to the bare-bones version THEN call for dispute resolution or open a request for comment. If you prefer one of these options, that works too. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Davidwr:
I think I have a really good idea.
Let’s keep things simple and just follow Wikipedia rules and verify claims that we post on this page.
Or is that not how it's done? JWatTheDotECO ( talk) 00:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@ JWatTheDotECO: As you are new to Wikipedia, I realized from your previous comments that you were equating "conflict of interest" with potential financial gain. That is NOT what "conflict of interest" means within Wikipedia's context. Wikipedia is different. Here, all articles must have a neutral point of view. They are to be factual and based on reliable sources.
One of the single biggest and most frustrating things for newcomers to Wikipedia to understand is that a page about 'your' company or topic is actually NOT 'your' page. It is instead a page about your company that is written by OTHER people about what you are doing. This is strange and bizarre to most newcomers because you would think you should be able to just go in and edit "your" page. Except that it is NOT "your" page. And even more frustrating, you are NOT supposed to edit ANY page with which you have an affiliation. Because you are associated with the topic or company, the Wikipedia community does not want you to edit those pages because of concern that you might not be able to truly have a " neutral point of view".
This is frustrating! I know. There are errors on pages with which I have COI that I would like to just go in and fix. But... Wikipedia does not work that way. You have to have other people do the work for you. I would encourage you to read:
Because you clearly have WP:COI in the eyes of the Wikipedia editor community, the path you have to get this page updated is to post your requests here on this Talk page and ask other editors to make those updates. This is what davidwr has been trying to help with - to make sure that the page incorporates your point-of-view, while also remaining accurate to the original purpose of the page.
The Wikipedia editor community created THIS page about .eco to be about the ICANN-designated top-level domain. It is linked from the List of Internet top-level domains. That is the purpose of this page. It is part of a broad set of pages that have been created for various top-level domains. We need this page to serve that purpose of talking about the .eco TLD. That's what it is here for.
Other examples include .bible, .coop, .club, and many, many more. All of them include information about the current ICANN-designated operator of the domain, and other info from ICANN. This is how these TLD pages are all set up.
As I noted earlier on this Talk page what we as editors could do is add a History section that mentions your unsuccessful bid to operate the TLD and also your ownership of the trademark. We can do this so that your company gets a mention here. Would that work for you?
Thank you for understanding. Wikipedia is a different place and its guidelines and conventions are not always clear to people new here. - Dyork ( talk) 02:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@ JWatTheDotECO: In your last edit summary where you reverted the text to again be about your company, you asked:
I would point you please to the IANA Delegation Report for .eco, dated 2016-08-25, where it states:
This is the execution of the ICANN delegation by IANA after ICANN finalized the registry agreement with Big Room, Inc, and published the .eco Registry Agreement on 2016-07-08.
This is the current status of the .eco top-level domain. ICANN delegated the TLD operation to Big Room, Inc, after that company prevailed in a community evaluation (see also this article from 2014). From what I can see, there were three or four other unsuccessful applicants, including your company, PlanetDotEco. However, at this time in 2021 the ICANN-designated operator of .ECO is Big Room, Inc, as verified in those documents above. That is what we as Wikipedia editors need to use in the creation of these Wikipedia pages - and that is why this page needs to return to having the correct current information about the ICANN-delegated .eco TLD. Thank you for understanding. - Dyork ( talk) 03:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort but you are misconstruing the clause. This is not proof of Delegation and Designation certainly does not have the same meaning. This clause is used to submit a delegation request to the CO via the COR. It certainly does prove Designation, which is used to obtain authorization.
Again - this is certainly not verification. JWatTheDotECO ( talk) 03:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
For the record,
JWatTheDotECO (
talk) 19:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I actually tried to understood your baffling then remembered you do not know how to read the Federal Contracts, have no clue about intellectual property and constantly deflect due to your shortcoming.
Sorry
JWatTheDotECO ( talk) 19:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@ JWatTheDotECO: I don't know what to say at this point. We have tried to explain, at great length, how Wikipedia works and to answer your questions. This text above *IS* "delegation" of the .ECO top-level domain by ICANN. This is how ICANN and IANA handle the delegation of all the generic TLDs. This is what THIS article about .ECO is supposed to be about. We in the Wikipedia editor community are seeking to chronicle the existing and current ICANN-delegated top-level domains. That's what this page is for. It is not to promote your company and your trademark. It is to write about the ICANN-delegated gTLD. Period. We as editors need to revert this page back to an earlier version that serves the purpose of writing about the existing TLD. However, your actions have shown us that if we revert the page to the intended purpose of this page, you will then simply revert the page back to your version promoting your company. At this point davidwr probably needs to follow one of the paths he suggested earlier, but was hoping to avoid:
Again, the simplest path here is to:
1. Revert the page to a previous version about the current state of the .eco TLD
2. Add a "History" section that mentions your claims and your trademarks.
Are you open to doing that? If not, we will need to use these other mechanisms mentioned above. - Dyork ( talk) 01:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Update 6 per the consensus reached at WP:AN, I have indeffed TheDotECO and JWatTheDotECO from editing the article. Both editors are able to edit this talk page. Mjroots ( talk) 07:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding reason. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " .eco".The discussion is about the topic .eco.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
-- davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Due to the ongoing dispute over branding, I am taking the "let's not throw gasoline on the fire" approach and removed the recently-restored logo.
If the logo IS restored, personally I think it should be the one used to identify this top-level domain, which was File:.eco top-level domain logo.png as of 2017. [5] As of a few minutes ago, this is substantially identical to the logos shown at the main web page at the site where that logo came from.
The logo File:PlanetECOLogo.png [6] is similar but it varies in 3 features: The color is "redder", the font is "skinnier," and the "C" is more "open." File:ECO Registered Logo.png [7] is the same as File:PlanetECOLogo.png but with the addition of ®.
Again, in the interest of keeping things civil, I recommend that branding of any sort be left off of the page until the dispute is finally settled, and that, for the next few months at least, branding-related additions be suggested here on the talk page for at least a week to see if there are objections. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 19:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The current version of the article does not have any "conflict of interest" issues.
With 1 of the 3 "connected contributors" seemingly retired from editing this page and the other two blocked from editing the page itself, I marked the {{ connected contributor (paid)}} template as "checked" and removed {{ COI}} from the article page.
Should new COI editors edit the page, "COI" can be re-added, names can be added to "connected contributor (paid)" or, for unpaid COI edits, {{ connected contributor}} can be added.
All 3 names in the "connected contributor (paid)" are welcome to use this talk page. Please use Template:Requested edit to request specific changes. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
.eco article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE. Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on 2021-02-11 by Davidwr.
|
An editor has repeatedly added material which I consider irrelevant. I have repeatedly removed it. Someone has to hit "pause" on this slow-moving edit war, so I will.
In his most recent edit, the editor used an edit summary of re-Inserted the "only" truth - .ECO® registration 3716170, 5851826, 5813887 and 6220615 are federally registered trademarks of planet .ECO LLC. Can someone please provide any evidence supporting the claim Big Room won the rights through a community application and has been delegated the registry operator of .ECO? If this can not be done, why is it being reported?
I think this is best resolved by deciding what is the purpose of this page?
Is the purpose of this page to describe the top-level internet domain listed on List of Internet top-level domains or something else?
If it is "something else" then is that "something else" notable? If it is the top-level internet domain, is the top-level internet domain notable? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 17:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Someone once said people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
To the extent that this page contradicts information from ICANN, currently available at https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/eco-2016-07-08-en linked to from https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries-agreements-en, it should be changed.
The ICANN page was last checked a few minutes ago and should be considered authoritative as of that date. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC) (fixed spelling. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 20:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
@ Davidwr: - In further research, I now understand that Planet.ECO LLC was one of the other unsuccessful bidders for .ECO. During the expansion of "new generic TLDs (newgTLDs)" over the past years, ICANN had multiple proposed TLDs where several different organizations applied to operate the domain. ICANN went through an extensive process that resulted in the TLD being awarded to one entity to operate. Perhaps to reflect this situation, a History section could be added as was done on the .amazon page (also a disputed TLD). That would allow some text about the dispute from Planet.ECO LLC to be added to the page. It would of course need to have text from reliable sources. - Dyork ( talk) 03:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
JWatTheDotECO ( talk) 04:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Your edit summary to
this edit says Dear David – Our Wikipedia contributions are guided by US Law, rules and regulations. It is interesting Big Room has no legal basis nor trademark right, yet you perceive they have superior rights. You are incorrect, bias and arbitrarily removing properly cited facts regarding “.eco”. Can you please guide me to any law, rule or regulation that supports your belief that a non-government entity delegated “.eco” rights to foreign company, Big Room? cc: Rachel Stallman, Paralegal, Wikimedia
First, I'm not sure what you meant by "cc: Rachel Stallman, Paralegal, Wikimedia" - she probably didn't see that edit unless you brought it to her attention. Second, the fact that the registrar of the .eco domain is in fact Big Room, and that as far as I know, no currently-in-force US law or court order has ordered ISPs in the United States to recognize any other entity as the registrar speaks volumes.
Also, the fact that you clearly have a "stake in the game" means you should not be editing this page directly. This is per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contributions disclosure. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 03:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear David
Thank you, TheDotECO ( talk) 04:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Davidwr: Sir:
JWatTheDotECO ( talk) 12:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You may explain how allowing Jacobmalthouse to have unfettered priveledge, since 2012, as “ignorance” on your part. I DISAGREE.On this I do have to backtrack: I should have said that I was personally ignorant of the matter until recently. Another editor added this user's name to the list of connected contributors a few months ago. As far as whether the other editors of this page were ignorant of his status or not, you are right, I should not have made that statement on their behalf. As for what to do about it: The most important thing, identifying him as being a "connected contributor," has been done (I will be changing all 3 names to "paid" shortly). I will be adding a "COI" template to the article itself shortly as well. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 13:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Davidwr:
JWatTheDotECO ( talk) 14:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you please guide me to any law, rule or regulationI've said what needs to be said on this topic.
Might you also be so kind to revert back the determinations you recently made in blocking my ability to post on the .ECO Wikipedia page?Wikipedia's long-standing guidelines and policies restrict the ability of editors who have a "conflict of interest," particularly those who are or expect to financially benefit from their edits, from directly editing an article. That you have a conflict of interest is obvious. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 15:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Davidwr:
JWatTheDotECO ( talk) 19:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is about the top-level domain ".eco" not the trademark ".ECO®" or the company behind that trademark, planet .ECO LLC.
Several authoritative sources, including ICANN [2] and IANA [3] clearly state that the top-level domain is under the sponsorship of a company called Big Room. Multiple domain registrars, in including Google, offer registration services for domains ending in .eco. It is unclear if planet .ECO LLC offers domain registration for domains ending in ".eco" but as far as ICANN and IANA are concerned, if any company has any status as "the official" anything related to the registration of these domains, it is Big Room, not planet .ECO. The fact that registered domains successfully resolve indicates that the top-level domain is active and currently registered domains are considered valid.
Now, as far as what company is "the official .ECO® registry" - that's irrelevant, since this page is about the .eco top-level domain, not ".ECO®". For what it's worth, it looks like planet .ECO sells domains ending in .earth, .green, .solar, .bio, as well as other endings like .com. However, I tried entering several random domain names ending in ".eco" and the result was the my choice of domain was not available. It could be just a temporary glitch, or maybe by some chance those very random names were actually already taken, but it is very unlikely that they would all be unavailable.
@ JWatTheDotECO: Personally, your "rush" is giving me a bad feeling about your motives for editing this article. If your goal is to make this article a better article about the topic that it is about, namely, the .eco top-level domain, your input is welcome, but if your purpose is to use the page to publicize other things, including .ECO®, you are in the wrong place and should stop immediately. Dyork's idea of having a history section is probably the right place for information about unsuccessful bidders. However, your conflict of interest still applies. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 20:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@ JWatTheDotECO: This article is about the current state of the .eco TLD as designated by ICANN. As shown on List_of_Internet_top-level_domains, there is an effort to document the current state of many of the current, active, ICANN-designated TLDs. This page therefore needs to returned to having text about the current, ICANN-designated operator of the .eco TLD. It is linked from the list of TLDs for this reason. As noted above on this Talk page, a History section can be created that can mention your unsuccessful bid to be the operator of the .eco domain. However, the main part of this page needs to be about the current operator. That is how these pages work. You are more than welcome to go and create a new Wikipedia article about the company Planet .ECO LLC through the Articles for Creation process. Please understand that articles need to be created using reliable sources and the people creating or editing articles need to NOT have any conflict of interest. You may find " What Wikipedia is not" to be useful in understanding the types of articles that we are seeking. Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia. - Dyork ( talk) 20:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
So you took down .ECO page and went back to advertising for Big Room Inc again. Last I recall, you did not notice the advertisement. I suppose different rules for different people. No verification needed and advertisement allowed for Big Room huh? In the case of the ".eco" delegation, you do understand ICANN "designates" and the government authorizes "delegation". Thus, you have not met Wikipedia rules, yet reverted back to what appears to still be merely conclusionary statement an ad.
You have not resolved the issue violating Wikipedia terms. My company is the trademark holder of .ECO for years Wikipedia has allowed Jacob Malthouse to refer to .eco as something that it is not. Worst, as a Wikipedia editor that has not obtained verification, you revert back to verbiage that is causing harm to our trademark. All I ask is for verifiable evidence that the claims you revert and post back onto Wikipedia are real.
Why are you advertising for Big Room Inc., is there a conflict I am unaware of?
As for your statement that I have a conflict, I disagree. While I do have an interest in protecting my trademark, I will not financially benefit by asking for Wikipedia to verify the statements, nor protecting the public and my trademark by providing information that is sourced back to the government, so that our trademark is protected.
In my opinion, this Big Room Fiasco is nothing but - Chicanery... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWatTheDotECO ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Due to the ongoing dispute about the page, I would like to add the following edit notice that will appear each time someone edits the page:
As of early 2021 there is an ongoing dispute regarding what, if any, information about domain registries should be included in the article. Please obtain WP:Consensus on the talk page before adding potentially controversial material. |
I'll wait at least 3 days before adding any "edit notice" to allow time for discussion.
An example edit notice can be found at User talk:Davidwr/Editnotice. It appears above the wiki-text when you edit or add to my talk page, User talk:Davidwr. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Jacobmalthouse: Based on your most recent reversion, I assume you object to the "bare-bones" version I made.
Earlier this year, I asked for input from people at WikiProject Internet ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Internet#.eco). That didn't get much of a response.
I see three possible solutions:
Are you willing to do the first one? If not, I will likely go to one of the last two, since the 2nd probably will fail and the 3rd has essentially already been done. If you are not willing to do the first one, do you think an RFC or asking for dispute resolution will be more successful in getting an article that is useful to Wikipedia and its readers?
Another option is to revert to the bare-bones version THEN call for dispute resolution or open a request for comment. If you prefer one of these options, that works too. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Davidwr:
I think I have a really good idea.
Let’s keep things simple and just follow Wikipedia rules and verify claims that we post on this page.
Or is that not how it's done? JWatTheDotECO ( talk) 00:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@ JWatTheDotECO: As you are new to Wikipedia, I realized from your previous comments that you were equating "conflict of interest" with potential financial gain. That is NOT what "conflict of interest" means within Wikipedia's context. Wikipedia is different. Here, all articles must have a neutral point of view. They are to be factual and based on reliable sources.
One of the single biggest and most frustrating things for newcomers to Wikipedia to understand is that a page about 'your' company or topic is actually NOT 'your' page. It is instead a page about your company that is written by OTHER people about what you are doing. This is strange and bizarre to most newcomers because you would think you should be able to just go in and edit "your" page. Except that it is NOT "your" page. And even more frustrating, you are NOT supposed to edit ANY page with which you have an affiliation. Because you are associated with the topic or company, the Wikipedia community does not want you to edit those pages because of concern that you might not be able to truly have a " neutral point of view".
This is frustrating! I know. There are errors on pages with which I have COI that I would like to just go in and fix. But... Wikipedia does not work that way. You have to have other people do the work for you. I would encourage you to read:
Because you clearly have WP:COI in the eyes of the Wikipedia editor community, the path you have to get this page updated is to post your requests here on this Talk page and ask other editors to make those updates. This is what davidwr has been trying to help with - to make sure that the page incorporates your point-of-view, while also remaining accurate to the original purpose of the page.
The Wikipedia editor community created THIS page about .eco to be about the ICANN-designated top-level domain. It is linked from the List of Internet top-level domains. That is the purpose of this page. It is part of a broad set of pages that have been created for various top-level domains. We need this page to serve that purpose of talking about the .eco TLD. That's what it is here for.
Other examples include .bible, .coop, .club, and many, many more. All of them include information about the current ICANN-designated operator of the domain, and other info from ICANN. This is how these TLD pages are all set up.
As I noted earlier on this Talk page what we as editors could do is add a History section that mentions your unsuccessful bid to operate the TLD and also your ownership of the trademark. We can do this so that your company gets a mention here. Would that work for you?
Thank you for understanding. Wikipedia is a different place and its guidelines and conventions are not always clear to people new here. - Dyork ( talk) 02:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@ JWatTheDotECO: In your last edit summary where you reverted the text to again be about your company, you asked:
I would point you please to the IANA Delegation Report for .eco, dated 2016-08-25, where it states:
This is the execution of the ICANN delegation by IANA after ICANN finalized the registry agreement with Big Room, Inc, and published the .eco Registry Agreement on 2016-07-08.
This is the current status of the .eco top-level domain. ICANN delegated the TLD operation to Big Room, Inc, after that company prevailed in a community evaluation (see also this article from 2014). From what I can see, there were three or four other unsuccessful applicants, including your company, PlanetDotEco. However, at this time in 2021 the ICANN-designated operator of .ECO is Big Room, Inc, as verified in those documents above. That is what we as Wikipedia editors need to use in the creation of these Wikipedia pages - and that is why this page needs to return to having the correct current information about the ICANN-delegated .eco TLD. Thank you for understanding. - Dyork ( talk) 03:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort but you are misconstruing the clause. This is not proof of Delegation and Designation certainly does not have the same meaning. This clause is used to submit a delegation request to the CO via the COR. It certainly does prove Designation, which is used to obtain authorization.
Again - this is certainly not verification. JWatTheDotECO ( talk) 03:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
For the record,
JWatTheDotECO (
talk) 19:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I actually tried to understood your baffling then remembered you do not know how to read the Federal Contracts, have no clue about intellectual property and constantly deflect due to your shortcoming.
Sorry
JWatTheDotECO ( talk) 19:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@ JWatTheDotECO: I don't know what to say at this point. We have tried to explain, at great length, how Wikipedia works and to answer your questions. This text above *IS* "delegation" of the .ECO top-level domain by ICANN. This is how ICANN and IANA handle the delegation of all the generic TLDs. This is what THIS article about .ECO is supposed to be about. We in the Wikipedia editor community are seeking to chronicle the existing and current ICANN-delegated top-level domains. That's what this page is for. It is not to promote your company and your trademark. It is to write about the ICANN-delegated gTLD. Period. We as editors need to revert this page back to an earlier version that serves the purpose of writing about the existing TLD. However, your actions have shown us that if we revert the page to the intended purpose of this page, you will then simply revert the page back to your version promoting your company. At this point davidwr probably needs to follow one of the paths he suggested earlier, but was hoping to avoid:
Again, the simplest path here is to:
1. Revert the page to a previous version about the current state of the .eco TLD
2. Add a "History" section that mentions your claims and your trademarks.
Are you open to doing that? If not, we will need to use these other mechanisms mentioned above. - Dyork ( talk) 01:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Update 6 per the consensus reached at WP:AN, I have indeffed TheDotECO and JWatTheDotECO from editing the article. Both editors are able to edit this talk page. Mjroots ( talk) 07:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding reason. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is " .eco".The discussion is about the topic .eco.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
-- davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Due to the ongoing dispute over branding, I am taking the "let's not throw gasoline on the fire" approach and removed the recently-restored logo.
If the logo IS restored, personally I think it should be the one used to identify this top-level domain, which was File:.eco top-level domain logo.png as of 2017. [5] As of a few minutes ago, this is substantially identical to the logos shown at the main web page at the site where that logo came from.
The logo File:PlanetECOLogo.png [6] is similar but it varies in 3 features: The color is "redder", the font is "skinnier," and the "C" is more "open." File:ECO Registered Logo.png [7] is the same as File:PlanetECOLogo.png but with the addition of ®.
Again, in the interest of keeping things civil, I recommend that branding of any sort be left off of the page until the dispute is finally settled, and that, for the next few months at least, branding-related additions be suggested here on the talk page for at least a week to see if there are objections. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 19:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The current version of the article does not have any "conflict of interest" issues.
With 1 of the 3 "connected contributors" seemingly retired from editing this page and the other two blocked from editing the page itself, I marked the {{ connected contributor (paid)}} template as "checked" and removed {{ COI}} from the article page.
Should new COI editors edit the page, "COI" can be re-added, names can be added to "connected contributor (paid)" or, for unpaid COI edits, {{ connected contributor}} can be added.
All 3 names in the "connected contributor (paid)" are welcome to use this talk page. Please use Template:Requested edit to request specific changes. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)