Talk:Ectaco

Brands
I'm considering putting this in a table format. Any opinions?--Crossmr 05:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent Controversy
Recent edits on this article mention a controversy about Ectaco possibly engaging in uncommon business practices. Please discuss below this line on what (if anything) should be placed in the article. Note that all additions must come with reliable sources to back up the argument. Blog sites are not reliable sources. Karl 334  Talk-  -Contribs  18:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Who chose you as president of anything? (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.170.52.179 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not work for anyone, I work to insure that the information placed in wikipedia is reliable. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  19:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Versions of each side don't contain reliable sources. The section will remain out of the article until some reliable sources can be found. I have searched in a couple places and can only find blog entries. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  22:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You will not found "reliable sources". The controversy happened on one forum (mobile read) and on one blog (the digital ereader). It is not like this notice will be in the NY Times or something similar. Tesi1700 (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are no reliable sources to be found, then the information cannot be posted. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  14:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * MobileRead is a fairly respectable source, surely? It has existed a long time, and is well regarded amongst those who have been using ereaders a long time. (declaration - I have a mobileread account, beyond that I have no links to them) Jtowler (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. And the same goes for the digital ereader. I'm pretty sure this couple of persons who are reverting edits and blocking the page are just shills paid by etaco.Tesi1700 (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take back the comment about 'shills'. I am just a wikipedia editor trying to follow the rules. Your language shows you do not have a neutral point of view. I don't care about this company, i just care about the article. If a reliable source can be found, I will add the section back myself. Unfortunately moblieread and digital ereader are blog sites. They are self published and do not meet the requirements set by wikipedia. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  14:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't suggest me anything. My proof is that you and the other guy seems to little worried about tarnishing the already tarnished etaco's reputation. Anyways, I will not start an edit fight and you can report to your bosses that everything is fine. I only hope you put the same zeal on other pages. Tesi1700 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2013 (:UTC)
 * I don't think Karl is an Ectaco shill, I think he (I assume you are a he, apologies if wrong), is trying to do the best and maintain a neutral stance to the article. The user AlexisReynolds on the other hand seems almost a reference model of a shill, to be honest. Ectaco were shilling on MobileRead. MobileRead are used as a reference in a number of other articles, thus it seems clear that MobileRead is a trusted source. Either that or a number of references across Wikipedia need to be removed. Jtowler (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While I may agree that mobileread is a good source for reviews for devices, they are not neutral in this controversy because it 'happened' on their site, and according to other edits (with no sources) there are accusations of punishing ectaco for not buying ad space. So we need a neutral source for this addition. And tesi1700, im sure my 10,000 plus edits on wikipedia articles will show I'm just trying to help the encyclopedia. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  14:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We really won't get another source. Looks like Ectaco get away with it - those damn kids need to get better in future :) the whole selling ad space thing is tosh - MR uses a third party ad supplier (from memory, as a member I don't see ads, so I assume they don't make much from them). The interesting part - the claim is made in public, if it were false it is extremely likely legal action would have been taken. No legal action... Anyway - I don't care enough about these scumbags to actually pus it here.  Jtowler (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Article protected
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)