Talk:MVDDS dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MVDDS dispute article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
* Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Rules / Règles

After receiving some other third party opinions from both admins and editors, i think it is time to put "les points sur les i". Please be acquainted with the following policies and guidelines before reading about the rules. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rule #1

Anonymous editing in both main article and its respective talk page is not allowed until everything is solved (meaning until further notice)

[edit] Rule #2

Any admin will reserve the right to block temporarily any account on the spot in case disruption, stalking, harassment of any scale is noted. Thus preventing the waste of bandwidth of the servers especially at the WP:AN/I busy page.

[edit] Rule #3

Any admin will reserve the right to block indefinitely any account on the spot in case any legal/physical threat of any scale is noted. This also applied to any abuse of Rule #2. on the spot anytime disruption, stalking, harassment, legal/physical threat of any scale is noted.

Après réception de quelques avis et opinions d'autres confrères administrateurs et de tièrs éditeurs, je pense qu'il est temps de mettre "les points sur les I". Prière que tout le monde se familiarise avec les suivantes politiques et des directives de Wikipedia: -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Règle #1

Édition anonyme sur l'article principal et sa page de discussion relative n'est pas permis jusqu'à tout est résolu (cad jusqu'à nouvel ordre)

[edit] Règle #2

N'importe quel administrateur se réservera le droit de bloquer temporairement n'importe quel compte sur le coup au cas où de perturbation ou d'harcèlement de n'importe quelle mesure serait notée. De ce fait la perte de la Bande passante des serveurs serait minime particulièrement à la page du tableau de board des administrateurs.

[edit] Règle #3

N'importe quel administrateur se réservera le droit de bloquer indéfiniment n'importe quel compte sur place au cas où n'importe quelle menace légale/physique de n'importe quelle mesure serait notée. Ceci est également appliqué à n'importe quel abus de la règle #2.


[edit] Dispute notification on MDSA Article

I strongly disagree that these articles should be merged. There has been no discussion in two months and MDS International is in liquidation and no longer exists. I will remove this tag in two days unless a reason is given otherwise. There has been too much erroneous information inserted into this article and the MDSA article.76.109.27.62 12:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Any change you make will be immediately reverted unless you explain exactly what information in this article is false and provide sources to back up your claims. nadav (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well,Nadav I provided a link to the multichannel news article about MDSO winning the FCC which is public. This was removed.

MDSO acquired rights in both auctions for 80 markets covering more than 15 million television households in the US.

from the reference

Another auction winner was MDS America, which picked up 60 licenses in rural markets for $3.9 million.

The reference there clearly states that MDSO won more than 60 markets in the first auction. You removed this information. obviously without following the link. I fail to see how this was NPOV pertinent. You at least could have just changed this to say "over 60" Since we now have a route to Mr. Wales perhaps it is time we take this matter up with him now. 76.109.27.62 11:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

When was it added or removed from this article? The article has stayed basically unchanged since I finished writing it. I assume then you are talking about the text in MDS America, but none of the sources adequately proved the claims in the text: the broken multichannel News link leads to their homepage (and you confess that the source makes a far weaker claim anyway), the Citizens Against Government Waste is partisan, is barely a reliable source and in any case said nothing about implementation in Ireland, and the Andrew Kreig quote was not clearly directed at MDS America in particular and doesn't belong in the lead. nadav (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Citizens Against Government Waste is actually non-partisan. That's in the fourth sentence of their article on Wikipedia. Regarding the news article that is no longer on the Multichannel News web site, what does WIkipedia normally do about that sort of problem? I can't imagine that Wikipedia will last for long if news events can only remain in articles for as long as a publication keeps them on their web site. Bhimaji 17:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Partisan in this case doesn't mean Democrat or Republican: it means that lobbied in favor of one side in the debate, so their writings probably shouldn't be taken at face value without further, more specific supporting evidence. For the question about dead links, see [1]. nadav (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)