Talk:DataTreasury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Keith De Lucia

An anonymous editor added important, but potentially defamatory information about Keith De Lucia to the article. The information might be acceptable if scrutinized to remove POV and properly referenced.--Nowa (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has cited "Florida State Corrections DOC#953398" as a reference for the assertion that Keith De Lucia has had a felony theft conviction. I've searched Florida Offender Search Page and was not able to confirm entries for either offender 953398, "Keith De Lucia", "Keith DeLucia" or "Keith Lucia". I would be happy to put in the fact that Keith De Lucia has a felony conviction, but we need to have an authoritative reference.--Nowa (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See Gathering References.--Nowa (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Politico

Is The Politico a reliable source? No other source attests to the fact that Keith DeLucia and Keith Wickey are the same person or that Keith Wickey had been convicted of armed robbery.--Nowa (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I also found nothing in a Google News Archive search for a robbery of an armored car in Suffolk County NY in 1993 - 1995 [1]--Nowa (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the article to better reflect the situation (for now), although this does not address the reliability of The Politico... --Edcolins (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to doubt the Politico and it looks to be a good article in that publication written by someone with a good background. However, this article on Wikipedia doesn't even come close to being NPOV, in my view and looks to be just an attempt to tarnish the reputation of the DataTreasury people. I'll try some edits, using Politico as a source for all sides. GDallimore (Talk) 13:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editor Edcolins

Moved from User talk:Nowa. Please continue the discussion here. --Edcolins (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that editor Edcolins' edits to DataTreasury are less than objective as he has claimed to be a shareholder and consultant to the company. I will edit and comunicate through proxy IPs, since I am part of the lobby effort wherein I have researched and found much about the company and its principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.156.251 (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor,
Thank you for your note and your contributions to DataTreasury. I think you’ve added important new content.
You might want to review the Wikipedia policies on Neutral Point of View and No Original Research. Following these guidelines should make your editing more efficient and effective.
In the meantime, please bear in mind that sysops and senior editors, such as EdColins and GDallimore, have gained the respect of the Wiki community over the past few years as objective and fair minded. If you abide by Wikipedia editing guidelines, I think you will find that they will accept your contributions even if they fly in the face of their personal biases.
You also might want to consider setting up a user account of your own if you are going to make future contributions. This will help build your own reputation as an objective, fair minded and skilled editor.--Nowa (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nowa! Thanks for your message on my talk page. I wonder to which ones of my edits this anonymous editor is referring. My edits were purely editorial: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I also wonder where I would have "claimed to be a shareholder and consultant to the company"!? Anyway, thanks for informing of the strange things happening here.. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Nowa and edcolins- While your efforts to disseminate information is certainly helpful and appreciated by many on the web including myself, realize that there are many paid professionals, like myself, examining this company and its actions. Some are paid by DataTreasury or its attorneys, others are paid by corporate interests and some are journalists. So, i have no need or desire to gain the respect of the wiki community, since i am paid for my work away... you will see that all of my edits and statements are factual and true, i just don’t have the time to find citations on the web. i will leave that to you guys :)
Now, in answer to edcolins' question about what was biased, try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DataTreasury&diff=202011677&oldid=201946586
edcolins knows first hand that the conviction is a FACT, because he KNOWS mr. de lucia, so the attempt to dilute the impact of that conviction, by implying that politico may be wrong by use of the phrase "according to", is disingenuous at best. Further, edcolins strongly implies to you above that he is not an interested party by carefully stating wonder and incredulity about where he would have '"claimed to be a shareholder and consultant to the company"!?'
The only axe I have here NOW is that I find it ironic and bothersome that my credibility is called into question by a person who is trying to influence and deceive. SO I ASK YOU EDCOLINS:
ARE YOU OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A SHAREOWNER AND/OR CONSULTANT TO THE COMPANY? AND
DO YOU HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE Of THE WIKEY/DE LUCIA CONVICTION?
I think you owe it to your friends at wiki to at least answer these questions honestly without parsing the words or evading the spirit of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.156.251 (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid I am not and I have never been a shareowner and/or consultant to the company. And I have no first hand knowledge of De Lucia. So that you know. If I had a conflict of interest, I would not edit the article under WP:COI. Please also read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are a paid lobbyist working on behalf of either DataTreasury or any financial institution with an interest in DataTreasury, I am afraid that you should probably not be editing any articles on this topic in view of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In view of the accusations you make against Edcolins that he also has a conflict of interests, I decided to look over the article myself and have done what I think is necessary to remove unbalanced information in the article. You'll note that the information about the conviction is still in there, but has been rephrased to ensure a more neutral point of view and to ensure that undue weight is not given to these convictions in an article which is about the company, not about its officers.
Edcolins appears to have stepped back from this discussion and has made no significant edits to the DataTreasury article since your accusations, so I think the matter of whether he is connected is now irrelevant.
If you do want to continue making edits, I recommend you take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before doing so. In particular, any disparaging comment about a living person MUST be reliably sourced. If not, it will be removed to avoid potential libel claims.
I would add one thing that I do not consider myself to be in any way a "senior editor". My views have no more weight than anyone else's. However, since you admit to having a conflict of interets, I do think you should think very carefully about making any more edits on this topic and follow the guidlines given in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thank you. GDallimore (Talk) 09:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi G- i use the term senior editor becasue nowa did above. dont know alot about wiki nor do i have much desire to learn. i dont care too much about this artcle even except that a supposedly objective "senior" or "sysop" editor has attempted to decieve on these very pages.
i think that your edits are fair, the legal/ethical issues regarding the owners and officers are very relavant here for 2 reasons. 1- They are being adressed RIGHT NOW in the current discusions regarding the company in the us congress (saying that they shouldnt be may just be your POV) 2- If congress is going to pay any money to DataTreasury legal/ethical issues of its owners and officers will need to be vetted (in the US a convicetd felon may not run a company with public debt or equity). The bottom line is that an armored car robery is pretty crazy thing to try/do (i actually question the veracity of this since it seems so out there), there is not much worse a company CEO can have in his past if capital risk/preservation is main concern of the shareowners. so while you say that its about the company not the officers, i think that you are at odds with legal/business practice precedent and history especially when it comes to such high crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.156.251 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether any of this is true or a fact or not is irrelevant. NOTHING goes into the article that disparages a living person without being sourced. I'm even concerned about discussing some of these topics on this talk page with a source and have asked for guidance from editors who are more used to writing biography articles. GDallimore (Talk) 17:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] editor EdColins

edcolins is an editor and is or has been a paid consultant / employee of the company. He is also a shareholder and knows the principles directly.

He has tacitly denied this to the wiki community.

He has made also edits that seek to dampen the affect of information regarding the company's principles and owners. This information is very relavant to the company right now because it is being used RIGHT NOW by the company's foes, BOTH lobbyists and lawmakers alike.

edcolins should answer to the wiki community for this, otherwise the credibility of everyone, including those backing him on wiki, is compromised.

i will not make any more edits since my point of view may be conflicted. i am new to wiki and your comments are helpful. Any information i think may be helpful you all i will simply post to the main editors directly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.156.251 (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. As mentioned above, I have no connection with the subject of the article. I just came here because Nowa asked for some help (here). So, please assume good faith and stop making groundless accusations. --Edcolins (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
you say they are groundless simply because there is no link to a website that to confirm this. Why should i ASSUME good faith when we BOTH know you ARE connected to the company AND have first hand knowledge the De Lucia convictions. you both forget, that these issues are bigger than a volunteer encyclopedia and millions are being spent on research on both sides... so it should be plausable to you edcolins that many know plenty about plausible to you G that many people know a lot about this company from such research but simply cant find links online to source it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.156.251 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Now why on earth would nowa ask YOU, edcolins, for backup on DataTreaury, specifically in reference to the felony conviction? How can we deduce this? nowa asks you for "help om DataTreasury" and immediately thereafter posts that he cannot find the felony conviction on the FL website. What in your past history with nowa would make him think you would know about a felony conviction, when all your earier coorespondence with nowa was regarding patents and your patent expertise... the plot thickens... NOW BOTH NOWA AND COLINS owe an explanation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.156.251 (talk)

[edit] Eastern District of Texas

We have a conflict over OR vs notability. The question is, should this article mention that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is a preferred court in the US to bring patent infringement law suits due to its "rocket docket"? I feel that it is since it supports why it is notable. Other editors disagree since there are no references which support the assertion that DataTreasury filed its lawsuits in this court because it was a preferred court. They view it as original research. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but would appreciate other editors weighing in on proper Wikipedia policy.--Nowa (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why notability is an issue. Information in an article doesn't need to be notable, provided it's more than just trivia. Only the topic of the article needs to be notable. So the only issue left is that of original synthesis of two separate pieces information in the article. Saying that the Texas court is noted to be patent friendly and a rocket docket implies that that was why the suit was filed there and that implication needs to be avoided unless basked up by a reliable source, partcularly when the more likely explanation is that the company just filed suit in a geographically convenient court. GDallimore (Talk) 15:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)