Talk:MDS International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] "Legal Problems" section

I'm removing the Legal Problems and associated sections. It appears to discuss a patent disagreement with some small company, and having half the article about it appears to be undue weight. Please cite major stories in mainstream news sources confirming the importance of any legal case. Thanks! Weregerbil 12:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.134.109.95 (talk • contribs).

Please let's discuss it here instead.
Companies are often involved in legal cases. Making this article mostly about the legal case is undue weight, unless that legal case can be verifiably shown to be a defining characteristic of this company. Until such a time, the legal case should not be a major issue in the article, along with purpots to provide and This page are LIES MADE BY MDS AMERICA junk. Please do not turn Wikipedia into a battleground or a vehicle for attack. Thank you. Weregerbil 10:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Weregrbil thanks for your comments. I believe there is enough information here to be verifiable and that this law suit has become THE defining characteristics of this MDSI company. By following the PACER links (People am prohibited from supplying the documents.) one can verify this and the links are placed in the article.64.134.109.95 10:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are court documents that do not verify the importance of the case, aren't they? Any external reliable sources? Weregerbil 10:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)64.134.109.95 10:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No sorry these court documents specifically address the establishment of a new service in the US. There are many many links around the Internet about the significance of MVDDS and MDSI. I will flesh out the article now. See http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=772&wit_id=212864.134.109.95 10:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So has this been widely covered in news and other independent third party sources? The "contempt of court ruling" section is the largest in the article; if that is a major legal battle then it should be easy to find plenty of sources that discuss it. Randomly picking and bolding sentences from court documents without any sources constitutes original research, I think. Weregerbil 10:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No Weregerbil, the ruling has been low key up until now. The contempt of court ruling has just been released to the public and not picked up by the press (yet). iunless one of he parties bring it to the attention of the press it will not be "news." But it is very significant info to anyone in the MVDDS market. I am adding content to the article now64.134.109.95 10:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

So we are in agreement this is unsourced and cannot be verified using reliable sources? Weregerbil 11:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. The PACER site is as reliable and verifiable as anything. I have reviewed your links to reliable and verifiable and the ruling is both. How is this not fulling the criteria fo both? 64.134.109.95 11:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can the importance of the legal case be verified using neutral reliable third party sources? Weregerbil 11:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Paper companies" section

Any sources? Sources for the importance of these companies? Sources for the claimed motivation of creating the companies? Weregerbil 11:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am adding as we speak but the reference provided show the motivation. Please follow the links. 64.134.109.95

Which reference is that please? The section in question has no references at this time. Weregerbil 11:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I though they were in links. I will remove that motivation.

Is there some reliable source that discusses those companies and why they are encyclopedically relevant? Weregerbil 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Results of Court Case" section

Is there some reliable source that documents the events in this section, and verifies that they are indeed results of the case? At this time, the section is completely unsourced. Weregerbil 11:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC) I will try and provide sources.

[edit] This is not going into a very good direction

This article is a mess of unpublished synthesis of published material. Is it possible to find reliable sources that discuss the whole issue, instead of Wikipedia conducting slanted original research into the importance, reasons, and reprecussions of a court case? I think we need pretty impressive sources before dedicating three quarters of an article to a lawsuit.

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)


[edit] Purports

Sorry I missed that one in the company bar. Thanks.64.134.109.95 04:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Legal sections and other changes needed

After a complaint received to WP:OTRS, I've removed the section on legal troubles since it provided no references. The contempt section provided sources to primary documents, which are not acceptable sources. Please see our policy on verifiability for more information.

Currently the article contains a great deal of information that is only referenced from material produced by the subject of the article. More references from third party sources are needed and more material should be added to the article to balance the large section about lobbying.

Please make sure that any further information added cites reliable sources and keeps the article inline with our policy on neutral point of view. Shell babelfish 08:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the article, there has been an attack angle in this article, starting from the preferred version of the original creator of the article. Appears there is a legal dispute between this company and another, resulting in some mud slinging here...(With all due WP:AGF.) The lack of third party sources makes it hard to describe the legal case in balanced terms. Or even verify the encyclopedic importance of the legal case. There aren't even sources that describe how this 6-person 10,000-EUR-revenue company passes WP:CORP in the first place. As it is, it is {{db-company}} material. Weregerbil 10:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is no assertion of notability. Please let me know if there are objections to an A7 speedy. --Fang Aili talk 13:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing deletion discussion, but as of yet, other than a brief spurt of media attention in 2001 there seems to be little that would qualify this company under WP:CORP. I wouldn't object to a speedy.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shell Kinney (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Please remove all our Brand MDSinternational are use by MDS america all text inside are made by MDS america, I have change a minimum to make right but every day again somebody add false informations. our company WEB site are www.mds.fr all about us in Wikipedia are false or truncated informations made By Kirkpatrick Machrino the CEO omf MDSA or also Wizard..... the CTO of MDS America

Thank you to remove all .

Jean-Claude Ducasse CTO

  • Having finished a review of the sources provided in the article, I found that little to none of the information in the article was actually contained in the sources. Because of this and the company's complaints I have stubbified the article. Please make sure when adding information to the article that you provide a reliable source and do not add information that is your personal knowledge outside the scope of what the sources provide. Please let me know if I can help explain any of the Wikipedia policies involved in this incident or answer any other questions on how to write an article. Thanks! Shell babelfish 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)



From my discussion page from you SHell

I would appreciate it if you could remove the personal attack from your user page. Per our policy, attacks of that nature are forbidden. Thanks. Shell babelfish 04:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

But the above unsigned comment stands huh? WizardOfWor 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this?

I thought the admins were supposed to be unbiased. It seems that my review of what has happened here is that jeancluduc started vandalizing pages, Doing multiple reverts, and making numerous legal threats. As I followed his "contributions" what I see are rants and personal attacks like the one above and the one that was on WizardOfWor's user page (since removed). I see almost constant censorship, warnings, and actions against, what at least from the outside, appears to be the less egregious side, althogh both sides seem to be pretty bad.

Why is a Wikipedia admin picking sides? Why isn't the org doing more to over see this type of thing?74.225.165.44 12:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought to provide an example. Here on the page discussing the deletion of this article a [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/MDS_International/ post] was placed accusing Admin Shell of being partial to one side. While I agree that this comment is not so pertinent to the deletion discussion, the most basic rules of impartiality would dictate that Admin Shell not move this to an obscure location. There are other Wikipedia Admins who could do the same.

However not only was it moved by the person it accused; there was no link placed so that the user community could easily find it. This impinges the motive even more. At best, it was an oversight, but it smells to me like picking sides especially given the trail of Shell VS WizardOfWor. 74.225.165.44 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Campaigns against rouge admins are common, and as far as I can tell, pretty systematically ignored by everyone else, and thus mostly a waste of breath. Just FYI. Happy editing! Weregerbil 13:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wacky comments

So we are reduced to a discussion from a pathological liar and a rogue Admin. If there are actually people who are reading this and contemplating a system purchase, place a note on my talk page and I will supply the number of "customers" of MDS International. After your dicsussion with the people who have had a "system" built by this company you canlet Wikipedia of the service they are providing the public hereWizardOfWor 20:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please understand that personal attacks are absolutely not allowed on Wikipedia. Your positive contributions are appreciated; comments such as "pathological liars" may get you blocked without further warning or discussion. Thank you. Weregerbil 22:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/d/s/Talk%7EMDS_International_972a.html"