Talk:InstaBook

NB This article is comprised of orphaned text that was found on an existing template. It has been cut & pasted here without change and the editor makes no claim for authorship, accuracy or veracity. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Tags

I am forced to object to the activities performed by Ckatz against me in the following articles:

PRINT ON DEMAND / INSTABOOK / VICTOR CELORIO

The editor in question has shown repeatedly a very strong bias against my entries in those articles. He either erases my entries without explanation or he tries to disqualify the articles in which I've participated by placing unfounded tags without any concrete proof or evidence. The implications of his tags are that there is something wrong or false with those entries, when every assertion I've made has been backed by independent references that comply with the requirements set by Wikipedia. I have gone so far as to reference just about EVERY SINGLE LINE I write to make sure of this.

I quote Wikipedia itself: "The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors."

However this editor, for unexplained reasons all of his own, has been going out of his way to erase my entries and/or tag the articles in which I participate.

I have asked him why he is doing this since InstaBook is a US Manufacturing company referenced in at least 2 of the most important encyclopedias of printing technologies, such as "The Handbook of Digital Publishing" of the Rochester Institute of Technology; it holds some crucial patents in the process known as Book on Demand, and has been reviewed by dozens of articles in the most important and relevant media, including the Seybold Report, The New York Times, Forbes, etc. Historically, it was the first company in the world to place print on demand equipment in bookstores, both here in the US and in other countries. Several companies that are mentioned in the PRINT ON DEMAND article have licensed InstaBook's technology. Víctor Celorio is the inventor of that technology.

Ckatz has refused to answer my questions and has in turn tagged my articles, again, without any explanation at all.

It seems to me a blatant attempt at censorship and a undeniable bias against me personally and/or against the subject of those articles for unknown reasons.Llambert (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

On this talk page, you should discuss a proposed change to this article. The article currently has {{coi}} and {{Advert}} tags: are you saying that one or both of those is inappropriate? Why? Are you saying, after posting the above message, that you have no WP:COI in relation to this topic? Re the article, have a look at IBM where the only mention of trademarks and patents are in relation to truly notable facts about those topics. Articles do not generally list trademarks or patents held by a company except where a good reason exists. The critical point of the article appears to be the claim in the third para that InstaBook was the first such device, by contrast with a device from Xerox. However, that point is only referenced by the manufacturer's site (hence the wording "The company advertises...). Without some independent source, it may be better to just stick to the facts: the device was released on a certain date and it performs a certain function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnuniq (talk • contribs) 01:34, 2 January 2010

About being historically the First...

I will answer you points, although you don't sign your entry...

My point was precisely the one you mention: instead of proposing ways to improve the article -which you've done, btw- ckatz tagged my articles and my entries without any explanation at all and refused to answer my questions about what was wrong with the article itself. Tagging an article is extremely easy and it is something that should be used judiciously. It should not be the first weapon in an editors arsenal, but the last. Otherwise is a lazy-man's exercise: if I don't have to provide any reasons for each tag I could go around Wikipedia tagging articles all day long as a way to smearing them.

In regards to your suggestion of taking a look at other companies articles for the proper way to write an entry, I did that and found that any number of articles related to companies mention their patents and their trademarks. The article you mention (IBM) does mention its trademark (see History section), and the number of patents IBM has. So I don't understand what you mean about those entries.

In regards to your point about InstaBook making the claim of being the first system, that is a fact that actually came from The Seybold Report reference, which says “There’s a very good chance that, within the next few years, you’ll be able to walk into your local bookstore and have a copy of a book printed on the spot. If that comes to pass, it will be because of the work of a few visionary companies that developed the necessary technology. One of those companies, and the first to actually have a machine in a bookstore, is the InstaBook Corporation, the subject of this article.”

I was wrong because I didn't provide the proper reference.

In any event, the faults of the article you mention are procedural and nothing more: I failed to reference the proper way. I will correct those mistakes immediately. And will also undo the ckatz tags because they are offensive without a proper foundation. Llambert (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you expressing yourself using indignant language if there is no COI? Having a COI is not somehow "wrong", it's just a fact that editors need to know about as an article is developed. Repeatedly removing a COI tag is good evidence that the tag is warranted. Please use this page to discuss the article, not other editors. If anyone were to repeatedly tag articles in a disruptive manner they would be blocked.

The "any number of press articles" text will have to be removed since articles should be precise: we either have a reference which we cite, or we omit the claim. Is there a reliable source that is independent of the company that can verify the "first" statement? The Seybold Report is downloaded from the InstaBook website, and that document makes no reference to Seybold.

What I said about IBM is totally correct: the only mention of trademarks and patents are in relation to truly notable facts about those topics, however that is a minor point and we should focus on this article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree: It should be about the article, not the editors.

I fixed the vague language and provided direct references to two other sources which can be directly accessed through their websites (NY Times and Publishers Weekly), plus a second Seybold Report which has all the information needed at the bottom of the pages. I tried to get a direct link to the articles but their website is by subscription only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llambert (talk • contribs) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)