Talk:.tel

Fair use rationale for Image:Dottel.jpg
Image:Dottel.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?
I'd like to point out, that this article reads like a press release, and was primarily written by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Justinhayward who presumably is the communications director of Telnic.

Could we get a Neutral point of view warning on the page, and include some of the criticisms (namely polluting DNS with another useless tld). 58.110.135.2 (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Telnnic's "Communications Director" is indeed named Justin Hayward (c.f.: http://www.justin.tel/, ironically). In light of this it's reasonable to assume he is the user Justinhayward and as such his edits clearly form a conflict of interest ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest ). As he has not declared an interest ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Declaring_an_interest ), has not been defending his company from slander or attack, and is arguably posting reformatted marketing materials, I suggest his edits be treated with suspicion and closely scrutinized. 86.43.175.225 (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I am responsible for updating this page. Let me know how I can further be clear in the editing of this page and declare my position. I thought by logging in as myself rather than hiding behind 'nicknames' as some are on this page that it would be very clear that I am associated with the organisation.

It seems that 'press release' information means facts. The facts are true. I have not either removed any other commentary in order to distort any dialogue in this. So exactly what I've supposed to have done incorrectly by representing the history of the organisation this year I'm unsure of.

Also, do you feel that the statement above 'polluting DNS with another useless tld' is subjective or objective? Have you even understood what .tel actually does? Or are you rather more concerned about who is responsible for cultivating information in a page? Rather than a 'neutral point of view' warning, how about putting factual information in there countering what you feel is biased? Perhaps Mike Arrington's views from his TechCrunch piece? Or Dan York's thoughtful analysis? But you are censoring, rather than providing balance.

Oh, and by the way, you're not even sticking to the rules of Wikipedia:

Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people. However, if you feel something is wrong, but are not sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.

Thank you.

Justinhayward (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your personal offense to the remarks here seem to accentuate the idea of your conflict of interest. By your logic, the best way to improve the article may be to remove it from Wikipedia entirely.  Wikipedia is not a news outlet nor an advertising billboard.

Swiftek (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys! Play nice. ;)

I think it was a good starting point even though it didn't come across as neutral. And since Mr Hayward is who he is, he's well placed to start the article at least.

Besides - I've just spent waaay too long editing the article as I found out more about it to see it removed now.

I'm sure it needs more work - but I think it's at least closer to being encyclopaedic than it was.

See what you both think and hack about edit as you will

RedYeti (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks RedYeti - I appreciate the time you've taken to neutralize the post. There are a couple of additional pieces I would like you to take a look at if you have the time, that I have added (I haven't taken anything away from your piece). The web console is something that Telnic has created but it is being given away to Registrars - we will not be managing it as an organisation - and registrars can build any interface they like. Also, we have created free open source applications that will allow .tel owners to edit (and non-.tel owners to search and access) .tel domains without having to go on the web - calling the DNS up directly. So this is far from normal TLDs and web content. Also, we've created 1024-bit encryption for .tel records (only contact information) so if people want to protect their contact information and share it with individuals, they can, and spammers won't get to see it.

both - please feel free to change this if you think this isn't a fair representation - all of these points are backed up by documentation at http://dev.telnic.org - whitepapers, code, APIs etc

Swiftek - this is a resource for all and I'm not personally offended. If you read my comment back, you'll see no emotionally-colourful language. Again, I think it might be down to the fact that perhaps you are confusing your own idiolect with a dialect that others do not share with you, in the same way you misinterpreted the facts within the original post.

Thanks,

JustinJustinhayward (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

They seem fair enough to me Justin with one very minor point, I'd remove this text: "and which are freely available on its developer website." and simply replace with a ref to that site (It may just be me, but I feel the wording of that gives away your occupation. You really can't help sounding up-beat. This an encyclopaedia. It's all very sombre 'round 'ere you know! ;)

I must just say that I've spent too long on this already (waaay too long as noted above! ;) but I'm happy to have a look at it now and then if I can help out at all.

Swiftek - What do you think of the new version of the page? If you're happy with it would you mind taking off any tags (biased/advert/peacock) that you deem appropriate. I'd hate to see all my effort wasted! Thanks :)

RedYeti (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your time and balanced view and thank you for investing the time in this. And point taken about the sombreness :)

Justinhayward (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the current way the article reads, and as we're getting closer to .tel launch and more people may view the article, I think it's fair to remove the biased/advert tags.

Daniel tharp (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As per removal of tag section here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Removing_tags

Since no one has objected for a lot longer than a few days, and someone has already taken the time to say it seems fair to them, I'll remove the tags that now seem to be inappropriate.

Should anyone decide that they are required after all- please discuss here.

RedYeti (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://telnic.org/launch-sunrise.html
 * In .tel on 2011-05-20 22:32:55, 404 Not Found
 * In .tel on 2011-05-31 15:12:51, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://telnic.org/launch-landrush.html
 * In .tel on 2011-05-20 22:32:55, 404 Not Found
 * In .tel on 2011-05-31 15:13:02, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://telnic.org/launch-general.html
 * In .tel on 2011-05-20 22:32:55, 404 Not Found
 * In .tel on 2011-05-31 15:13:11, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Increasing number if clients?
The text in the leading paragraph says "an increasing number of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) clients can address a tel domain name directly." It references an article about a client application for Windows that was developed by a partner with Telnic. I don't see how this can be considered "an increasing number" when in fact the reference shows the number of supported clients is 1. Is there a list of supported clients that can address a .tel name directly? If not I would say the word "increasing" is forward-looking and does not state a fact. LeeAzzarello (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your reasoning here. See what information is available, and if there's no supporting evidence, we should change the sentence (possibly by removing it). —fudoreaper (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)