User talk:Martijnb

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Comverse Technology has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \byoutube\.com (links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ihsqz_kgk4). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! -- XLinkBot (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal note: have been trying to revert the Comverse page back to its original content (from before August 5, 2009) but in vain. will now try to sort things out through a decent dispute. Think the page was a commercial contribution that lacked notices to a number of controversies. After editing them, they were directly taken out by a Yakirfeldman (aka Yfeldman who seems to be a Comverse Marketing Director . Have edited his talk page. Hope he'll react and will not continue to undo any contributions. Martijnb (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

29 Aug 2009

Hi Martijn,

As per your request, I sourced the footprint stats (I’m really new at this – I had to figure out how to source stuff. I hope I did it right.)

The other changes I made I think are pretty self-explanatory, done with an eye for more concise and correct language. I eliminated extra words and repetition -- but no information at all.

My biggest suggested deletion is in the “Complaint” section. The second paragraph didn’t really say more than the first paragraph, and anyway the entire PDF doc is attached. Anyone who wants can read that extra paragraph and the whole complaint with a single click on the link.

Regarding the layoff text, the truth is that it really seemed bloated to me (I compared it to many other hi-tech companies in Wikipedia that have had layoffs and it was way out of line by comparison. If you want, I'll give you examples.) There were other issues in that section, too. As you are a critical reader, you know that the fact that something appears in a newspaper doesn’t necessarily make it true or worthy to be cited in an encyclopedia. For example, you wrote:

“...and an other report (YNet news) notes that Comverse’s board of directors has been mulling the possibility of moving a significant part of the operations of its subsidiary, Comverse, out of Israel [9].”

Well, here we are years later and no such move out of Israel was ever made. It was a rumor that made it into print with no apparent basis in reality. Why do we need to report rumors? I left the footnote in, though, so anyone who wants can follow it. Actually, I left all of your footnotes in, although by comparison with other Wikipedia entries the many footnotes on layoffs constitute a bit of overkill.

Also in the layoff text you wrote:

“One of the alleged reasons (for layoffs) have been its involvement in the before mentioned options backdating scandal [8]”

I’m not sure why you feel that this “alleged” reason (to use your own word) is worthy of being in an encyclopedia. There were many reasons for layoffs, but as far as I can determine, there is no actual connection between the backdating affair and layoffs.

Similarly, I think the Fox report about Comverse collaboration with Israel is little more than recycled rumors, but I suspect it is important to you to keep it in, so I have left it in.

Lastly, I want to thank you for your patience with me. I think you will agree that the Comverse entry that shocked me the first time I saw it was seriously unbalanced. I never made any changes to Wikipedia before, but in the name of fairness I felt moved to get involved.

You and Ipmatrix have helped me to understand how the process works.

Yours,

Yakir

Yakirfeldman (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martijn,

Just keeping you in the loop. I got feedback from Ipmatrix regarding the latest changes, and what I wrote back to him is pasted below. (I would send you his note, too, but I can't figure out how to get to it now -- I just tried.)

Anyway, as I told him, I will re-visit the Layoff section soon -- when I can free up a bloc of time to really put thought and care into it. Please be patient...

Thanks,

Yakir

Hi Again Ipmatrix,

I got your latest message about wanting me to give more info on the Layoff links. I will do that -- but please give me a bit of time to get to it. I'd like a chance to think about it a bit and do it properly. You have my word that I will address it -- hopefully to your complete satisfaction -- before too long.

Yakirfeldman (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

August 30:

Hi Martijn,

I appreciate your attempt to improve the layoff text and am happy to see that you have addressed at least one of the problems I cited previously, but the current text you propose is flawed in fundamental ways.

Here are some examples:

First of all, the headline that you yourself created says “Lay offs” and yet the text you wrote now says nothing at all about layoffs. It doesn’t even mention the word! Go ahead and re-read your entire new text. From the first word to the last, it discusses restructuring only. Which do you want to write about – layoffs or restructuring? If it’s restructuring, then the headline is wrong and many of the sources do not apply. And besides, it is the prerogative of any company to restructure – layoffs are more relevant to the people who are likely to read this entry. So I suggest that we stick with text about layoffs.

You say:

” One of the alleged reasons (for the restructuring) have been its involvement in the before mentioned options backdating scandal [10] “

Besides the incorrect grammar (you can’t use the word “have” in that place), there is nothing in the article that connects restructuring to backdating. Again, please read the footnoted article yourself if you wish and try to spot any correlation there at all and let me know if you can. Your purpose is the same as mine -- to report truth that has value and substance in the most unbiased and accurate way possible. People writing entries in Wikipedia must avoid the kind of writing that suggests that they have another motive at work…

You say:

“an other report (YNet news) notes that Comverse’s board of directors may be mulling the possibility of moving a significant part of the operations of its subsidiary, Comverse, out of Israel [11] although there is no clear indication of this at to date.” More grammar issues (e.g. “an other”, “at to date”), but more important: Do you really think an encyclopedia should say in an article that a company “may be mulling” something, “but there is no indication of this”? There is no fact or substance here, and even no source cited in the article for the rumor. The company denied it in the article (which you fail to mention) and years later we see that the thing that was mulled never happened and there is no further report of such rumors. Please explain (justify) why you think this type of yellow journalism belongs in any objective encyclopedia. It’s like saying “Yakir (or Martijn) may be mulling beating his wife, but there is no clear indication of this and he denies it.” In such a case, decency would suggest saying nothing at all – especially in a respectable reference work. Can you find any other similar examples of printed allegations anywhere in Wikipedia – or do special standards apply to Comverse?

You say:

According to reports in October 2008 (from JPost [14]), March 2009 (from YNet News [15]) and August 2009 (from YNet News [16]) new restructuring rounds seemed to be necessary following the financial crisis of 2008-2009.

And yet please look at link 14 – it isn’t even about Comverse! It is about another company entirely! Is this kind of fiction (or sloppiness) up to the standards of Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia? Why did you put such a link in – or did you not even check it out? (By the way, I left it in my new revision because I was afraid that if I tried to take it out it would make the text unstable.)

I have other specific criticisms of your suggested new text which I will share with you if you want, but it is late and I am tired. I hope I have given you enough explanation of why I am replacing the current text with my suggested text that is accurate and honest and objective and more in line with Wikipedia standards. Since Ipmatrix suggested it, I learned how to keep in the information about all of the links.

Please, if you plan to remove my layoffs text again, do me the courtesy of explaining why you feel that my text needs to be replaced, and why you think the text you are replacing it with is better/ more truthful/ more accurate/ better written.

One more thing. I have just taken the time to listen to the Fox News video for the first time. Not only is there no source ever cited in the clip at any time for the allegations, but at minute 3:53 a journalist asks, “Carl – is there any reason to suspect in this instance that the Israeli government is involved?” and Carl Cameron actually says, “No, there is not.” I therefore no longer think that this is a “decent” source to cite (“decent source” is the phrase you used when you took out my footprint text) if we are going to write something as inflammatory as that Comverse is “Suspected of collaboration with Israeli authorities.” So I have taken that text out. If you want to put the text back in, please justify doing so at an objective and “decent” journalistic level.

The backdating scandal, the delisting, even the layoffs – these are real and valuable and factual issues, even if they are unpleasant for Comverse. Provocative innuendo like the “suspected collaboration”, based on a single video clip with no cited sources – a clip that itself admits there is no reason to suspect the accused -- this is not in the same class as the real issues mentioned above.

Thanks,

Yours as always,

Yakir

Yakirfeldman (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martijn,

Can we email each other directly instead of through Wiktipedia? This is cumbersome to use. I'm open to phoning or Skyping you so we can just talk.

The Le Monde source (I found it in English -- I can give you the link if you want) is not an independent source, it is a re-hash of the Fox News source. This is not "a debate, discussion of opposing opinions", as you calim, but rather an apparently baseless allegation made seven years ago that never even had enough credibility to be answered with an opposing opinion. For some reason, you seem compelled to drag it out and display it in Wikipedia, so I have written what I believe is a truly factual account of the two sources (which are actually one and the same source.) I hope you agree that what I have written is journalistically accurate and intellectually honest, based on the sources you cited and without bias.

Regarding the Layoff section, your writing is still problemmatic (and not just your grammar), but I don't have time or energy to get into it now. Again, might you consider doing it by email and arriving at text we both feel is optimal -- (instead of by a string of edits on Wikipedia)?

Thanks,

Yakir (yakir.feldman@ comverse.com)

PS -- With the thousands and thousands of entries, I'm curious why you are so interested in the Wikipedia entry for Comverse.

Yakirfeldman (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Martijn,

You wrote:

Besides the Fox and Le monde sources there is an array of studies on this topic that make it controversial. Searching on "Comverse + spying" results in exactly 13,000 hits. In the Wikipedia article, two renowned sources of those 13,000 are used.

Might I point out...

Vodafone + spying = 597,000 hits

Ericsson + spying: 1,720,000 hits

Nokia + spying = 3,770,000 hits

Every telecom company/ vendor I can think of + spying gives me thousands of hits – Comverse is actually on the low side. The thousands of hits do NOT mean that any or all of these companies are nests of spies.

By the way, I also tried, “Comverse + award” and found that it has 1,770,000 hits -- and the truth is that Comverse products win many well-documented industry awards. If you were consistent in your approach, you would start putting together a section on Comverse awards.

Looking at your string of edits and then edits of your prior edits today, it is clear that you want the Suspicion text in the Comverse entry to be as negative as possible to Comverse and are putting much thought and energy into it.

I have come to the conclusion that your bias is so overpowering to you that there is no possibility of reasonable discourse and so I am giving up my hope of creating with you respectable Wikipedia entry.

Because it saddens me (as a human being, not as a Comverse employee) to see the way you write and the energy you devote to it, I do not plan to log in again.

You win -- not by being right, but by being obsessively unreasonable. Enjoy trashing Comverse to the best of your ability.

Yakirfeldman (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yakir,

To be quite frank with you, I did focus on a number of aspects that are rather controversial. This was merely to counteract your censory work of undoing contributions from various authors. Besides that I have tried to keep communication positive and frequent to reach an agreed state.

As a Comverse director, it is up to you to balance the article with key facts (like company acquisitions, awards, etc). In fact, that is what you have mentioned in a discussion with user Ipmatrix. You won't find me censor any of these kinds of contributions,... unless of course contributions are untrue/unreferenced or have another side to it that was not elaborated on.

Good luck and... always look on the bright side of life

Martijn --Martijnb (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Martijnb/INDG has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/INDG, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Indg engaging experiences logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Indg engaging experiences logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have questions, please post them here.
 * I will automatically remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/INDG concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/INDG, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission INDG


Hello Martijnb. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled INDG.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)