Talk:Alien Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on July 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Discussion

hey Guys,

I am auniv student and was doing some academic research on RFID tags.I was curious to know

what--did type"0" or type"1" tag mean.Do you have any clue as to what that means?

--Amit

Amit, type (more accurately "Class") refers to a different air-interface protocol for the transmission of EPC (electronic product codes). "Generation 1" EPC tags were based on these proprietary protocols; Class 1 being Alien IP (although freely licensed) and Class 0 being developed by Matrics (now a division with Symbol Technologies). Both classes had their pros and cons (relating to memory size and writability) but all companies are now releasing "Class 1 G2" (generation 2) product which seeks to create a global standard.

I would also point out that Zebra are not a competitor of Alien Technologies. Their main direct competitors would be Symbol, Philips and Impinj.

[edit] Subject to deletion?

I am removing the "subject to deletion" again, because of the following items. 1) This article talkes about a very well known company in the RFID industry. It is concidered the "800Lbs Gorilla" of the industry and the first to go public.

2) Nothing about this article looks like and advertisment. It mearly states what the company is about and gives information on the company.

3) Alien Technology is significant in its field. I beleive Stanman is doing this in bad faith and making a WP:POINT violation.

4) StanMan has failed to follow the steps laid out in the proper manner in how to set and artical for deletion. Because of this, it makes his request invalid.

5) If this is added again, I will recommend that Stanman be added to the vandals list and possibly banned from wiki.

--Bschott 16:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't just remove the notice. The article is currently being discussed at the Articles for Deletion page, and removing the notice will not stop this. The notice is there for your and others' benefit so that you know it's being discussed and can give your opinion on the matter. I am replacing it. Note also that repeatedly removing the notice is a an offense that (now that you know this) can get you blocked. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion, I do not believe Stanman had gone through the proper procedure to allow a deletion notice. There was 1) No discussion about why he flagged it 2) No suggestions on how this could have been changed before he submitted it 3) And no time to make any corrections (even if he had made suggestion) as he flagged it right away.

While I understand my error, in good faith, I do not believe this deletion discussion was even warrented. He has no prior history other than just on this page for the deletion notice, and will not answer any questions on why he had flagged it. This should never have even gone to deletion discussion, as this person went right from a 'prodding' to 'deletion' the very next day. No suggestions, no talk here....direct to deletion.

My theory is he maybe from the corporation that Alien is now locked in a dispute in court over patent rights with. (It is odd that this occurred very, very close to the date that the lawsuit was filed) Because of this I believe that he has violated the WP:POINT and should be formally warned.--Bschott 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You cannot delete the Deletion notice ! I guesss you're new in Wiki. Doing so again will cause you to be banned from Wiki. You can vote on the page, but not remove the notice.

Official policy vandalism

Deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus. Improving or clarifying policy wording in line with the clear existing consensus is not vandalism.

Bschott - Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

StanMan 20:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, I have been here longer than you Stan, which is verifible with your and my "history" tabs. As it is, before you get worked up, you are the one that is in the wrong here. I made a mistake, yes, but you are the one in trouble. Not I. And as it is, you have not made any credible comments or suggestions on 1)Why you suggested deletion 2)What could be done, IYHO, to bring this article in compliance or 3)Given proper time to implement any suggestions. Again, you are the troublemaker here, not I.--Bschott 20:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove the notice. StanMan followed procedure perfectly well. The deletion policy does not require discussion before an article is flagged: the flag is there as a notice that discussion is being done! It's just being done on a particular part of Wikipedia dedicated to such discussions. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and on that note, StanMan has no authority to issue you a "last warning" at all. You're obviously acting in good faith so a block would be uncalled for. He's also, incidentally, quoting the wrong part of policy... — Saxifrage ✎ 21:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage, I stand correct issued a test4 instead test3. On that note, Bschott - Please try to be Civil in Wiki - StanMan 21:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Those template are not for use on article's Talk pages, they're for use on user's Talk pages. (I've removed the one above.) Your civility-sensitivity is set too low as well, as you are being at least as incivil as he. Neither of you are being particularly incivil, at that. Hostile, yes, but incivility is something else entirely. Keep it to a dull roar and don't start hurling insults or impugning each other's character and you'll avoid incivility. Also, the test3 is unwarranted. You start at {{test}}, not test3. In any case there's no vandalism to warn anyone not to do anyway, so you can consider the matter of vandalism settled and leave the test templates well enough alone. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit per suggestions on Deletion talk page

I have removed the board of directors information, the Investors list, cleaned up the external links, added an external link to the S1 filing as a way to verify any information about the copy as the SEC/FTC and Nasdaq require complete disclosure on all aspects of the company. I hope whom ever the original poster of this article was doesn't mind.

Clarified what kind of RFID tags/labels the company makes and what they are used for, as to disassociate from any mistaken beliefs that the company produces implantable RFID chips. Alien has nothing to do with human implantable RFID like "Verichip".

Also added history of company in (MHO) a non-biased manner.--Bschott 20:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)