User talk:Yakirfeldman

This isn't going anywhere is it? Wikipedia is about facts and sourced opinions. Simply deleting any of these for the sake of the good name of your company isn't the Wikipedia way.

Please share with us, which sections are specifically unfounded or irrelivant and let's agree on something that reflects the truth, eventhough that might not always be beneficial for your company.

Warning: If this goes on I may have to report a Diff of edit warring (3RR warning) as it seems you are consequently undoíng edits from various users since August 5th, 2009 martijnb (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2009

As far as I can see, full references are included, so even if the truth is hard to take, the content is fully complient with the Wikipedia principles. The statement "Comverse is the world’s leading provider...." does not include any reference at all, which is not acceptable according to the same principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipmatrix (talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to add information that you feel give a more balanced picture of Comverse. Don't forget to include full references.--Ipmatrix (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we have an open discussion that more people can follow and comment, so using the Wiki talk possibility is a very good way. I am sure that you have a lot of positive information about Comverse, and I welcome you to add such information, as you feel that this will make the picture more balanced. The Comverse history book includes chapters that most other companies and competitors don't have, as shown in the Complaint document. This makes it difficult to compare what is written about Comverse with others, but it is still relevant and interesting facts. Again, I urge you to add relevant information according to Wikipedia principles. --Ipmatrix (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ipmatrix,

I don't know how to use "Wiki talk," but if you explain it to me that sounds like it may be a workable mode of communication and collaboration if you prefer it to email.

Meanwhile, as you suggested, this time I added a bit of information about Comverse and the subsidiaries. If these changes are not simply undone, I will start to think about other things that are relevant to add for balance.

Yakir

Yakirfeldman (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yakirfeldman On the history page you can find for each revision some links looking like this (talk | contribs). If you select a change that Ipmatrix made, it will look like this, Ipmatrix (talk | contribs). Follow the talk link, edit the page and I will receive your edit as a message from you when I log in. The same way when someone send a message to you, they follow the talk link on Yakirfeldman (talk | contribs) and edit your page. --Ipmatrix (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yakirfeldman Your latest changes are not good! We need to keep a headline for each link, otherwise you don't know what you are reading till you open the link. You must undo your latest changes, the previous version was easy to read. --77.244.3.110 (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yakir,

Think your latest changes are okay except for the lay offs part. As a marketeer, I can understand you are concerned about this array of links, but this is the downside of an encyclopedia: it shows both positive and less positive aspects of a company. Comparing similar parts with other companies is not always relevant as Comverse has in this case a rather unique position. Copied back the original text and added (as by your remark) that the runour of Comverse moving out of Israel has not at all materialised. Thing is, around that runour, lay offs in Israel were noted, so the story is still relevant in this respect.

Rgds, --martijnb talk 15:53, 30 august 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yakir

My intention with the second paragraph (66) of the Complaint section, was to summarize the consequences of what is described in the first paragraph (1). The Complaint document is 26 pages long, with text that is not that easy for everyone to understand, so keeping the second paragrap (66) as a summary will be valuable to a lot of readers. The first paragraph contains the words "more than a decade" without explaining what decade it is, while the second paragraph explains this, "for fiscal years 1995 through at least 2005." I think that the second paragraph makes a lot of sense, so I believe that it should be put back into the text!

--Ipmatrix (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yakir,

(1) Edited the Lay-offs text. It now encapsulates your text (about economic downturn being the main reason for layoffs) as well as the nuancy that in economic growth periods lay offs were reported too. (By the way you claim I was deleting your layoffs text...?? I was actually the one starting this layoffs text that you subsequently deleted.)

(2) About the firing of execs... Fair point that had nothing to do with restructuring (a word that i wrongly used to avoid being over-negative). Rewritten that part. (Suggestion: if spelling or references are incorrect, please do not delete parts altogether but try to be constructive where possible).

(3) The mulling out of Israel part... fair point left out this time, yet the report also indicates Comverse laying of employees again. This is relevant with respect to the fact that lay offs continued in a period of economic growth.

(4) About the Amdocs Link (you stated: "it isn’t even about Comverse! It is about another company entirely"). If you would have read the whole article, you would have bumped into the part that clearly makes mention of Comverse laying off 150 people. This is as relevant as any of the other sources.

(5) About the Fox link... The chapter name 'Controversies' is the explanation as to why the Fox news report is relevant. Definition of 'controversies' according to wiktionary: "A debate, discussion of opposing opinions". Clearly this is such a topic as there are two camps disputing Comverse's involvement in this US national security matter. To put some more weight behind the controversy I added the Le Monde reference in the article. clearly this magazine is renowned for being a solid source worldwide. An Israeli spy network was dismantled in the U.S., Le Monde, March 2002

(6) One more thing... I tidied up your links referring to Comverse's and Verint's company footprints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijnb (talk • contribs) 07:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Hope the above is clear, unbiased and satisfactory to you. Kind regards, Martijn

PS. In case of any spelling/grammar issues, please feel free to correct (in stead of delete). You can also let me know and I'll clean it up myself ;-) --- martijnb (talk) 8:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yakir The Complaint document describes "two separate fraudulent schemes", the Options Backdating and Improper Accounting practices. The Options Backdating is described in the Controversies section as if it is an issue involving a few Comverse executives only. Paragraph 66 in the Complaint document summarizes exactly the results of the Improper Accounting practices, and since this affects so many people, customers, share holders, employees, analysts, competitors etc, para 66 should stay in the text. --Ipmatrix (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yakir,

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.

With regards to my writing being "problemmatic"... that word is written with one m ;-))

Best regards, Martijn

PS. I do not intend to extend our dispute over Skype, e-mail or any other channel. We've already come a long way, so let's conclude on this part of your dispute (the other being with Ipmatrix).

--Martijnb (talk) 10:17, 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)

Hi Yakir

As I have said before, I urge you to add facts that you feel will balance the article! Working with marketing, I am sure that you have a lot of referenced information that you can add to achieve this. Comverse has a rather unique position in the business world as the company has not posted relialable financial reports for 14 years! I guess that this must be something of a record in its class. You can't change the company history, so a lot of hard work is required to make people see that lying and cheeting is somethting that belongs to the past.

--Ipmatrix (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)