User talk:Factiod

October 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on CueCat. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Factiod. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article CueCat, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whats all the blocking and hub bub about?

As a Patent Investigator and Intellectual Property Prosecutor, with no ownership in the device or its IP and I am in the processing of updating the record of CueCat and its invention, history and Intellectual Property Record. For a matter of official notification here, the record to date (the one that is currently viewable to the public) is misleading, grossly factually incorrect, liable to the pre-existing company, its technology and its historic record, and – in fact – was posted by a rival technology to the pre-existent company. I can submit over 6500 pages of government, federal and public documents to verify the account, facts and record of the device known as CueCat, based on my theses and an upcoming research project and book. In trying to update the record, I found that almost immediately several people (one using multiple identities) were reverting back to the factually incorrect record of the device and its creation and history. What is being portrayed is incorrect information and the record must be corrected. I did get confused when a bot or person was communicating with me, and thus ended up banned. What can I do to get this gross error corrected? I am prepared to send the document source of 6531 pages directly to Wiki for legal review. But seems the community at large watching (55 users) this topic are doing so with ill and damaging intent. I have done my homework, understand the device, its creation, its intellectual property, its impact and its legacy and need the record updated and the page LOCKED if needed to avoid salacious and malicious. None of our “talks” to the contributors were addressed. Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:13, 29 October 2011‎ (talk • contribs) Factiod

Firstly, Wikipedia is highly unlikely to be interested in involving itself in a 'legal review'. This is not a court of law. Secondly, you need to read Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing - we do not base articles on original research, but instead on published reliable sources. It may very well be true that the existing article on the CueCat is problematic, but the appropriate way to deal with this is by finding evidence from published sources to verify this, and by participating in discussion on the article talk page - not by edit-warring. Finally, we take allegations of people misusing multiple identities very seriously. If you have evidence for this, please let us know what it is.

Incidentally, Wikipedia does not 'lock' articles, even temporarily, without good grounds, and certainly not on the say-so of individuals who seem not to understand how Wikipedia works, and seem over-keen to imply malice without presenting evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy you and your tirgger finger created a mess for a good intentioned new user of Wiki. You give Wiki a bad name. You were just wrong and I have pointed out the facst as they are.(Factiod (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I deleted material which was at the time unsourced, and based on original research - as is entirely in accord with Wikipedia policy. Nothing I did was 'wrong'. If you have evidence to the contrary, let us see it - but I note you have produced no evidence for your earlier allegations. Frankly, I get the strong impression that you have entirely the wrong attitude as a Wikipedia contributor. This is supposed to be a cooperative effort, and endless accusations against others are hardly likely to get you far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I am the FACTOID, not the GRUMP. You simply did not bother checking the facts. Look at the links that have counter codes, they have not changed. YOU DID NOT CHECK THE FACTS. You have been flagged for this before and you did not even try to HAVE A DIALOG LIKE THE WIKI RULES STATE.

Me have the wrong attitude? You ARE SUPPOSED TO ASK me questions and such, NOT just delete stuff and not either post or ask comments. When did you check all the refering links? You didnt. You simply did not like what you saw and you jumped the gun. Nice job and great welcome to Wiki. I know you and your way and its just wrong. (Factiod (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

ONCE AGAIN (Factiod (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC))

As a Patent Investigator and Intellectual Property Prosecutor, with no ownership in the device or its IP and I am in the processing of updating the record of CueCat and its invention, history and Intellectual Property Record. For a matter of official notification here, the record to date (the one that is currently viewable to the public) is misleading, grossly factually incorrect, liable to the pre-existing company, its technology and its historic record, and – in fact – was posted by a rival technology to the pre-existent company. I can submit over 6500 pages of government, federal and public documents to verify the account, facts and record of the device known as CueCat, based on my theses and an upcoming research project and book. In trying to update the record, I found that almost immediately several people (one using multiple identities) were reverting back to the factually incorrect record of the device and its creation and history. What is being portrayed is incorrect information and the record must be corrected. I did get confused when a bot or person was communicating with me, and thus ended up banned. What can I do to get this gross error corrected? I am prepared to send the document source of 6531 pages directly to Wiki for legal review. But seems the community at large watching (55 users) this topic are doing so with ill and damaging intent. I have done my homework, understand the device, its creation, its intellectual property, its impact and its legacy and need the record updated and the page LOCKED if needed to avoid salacious and malicious. None of our “talks” to the contributors were addressed. Please adviseFactiod (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

(Factiod (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Please read your block above. You have been blocked for edit warring and nothing you have written absolves you of such, nor indicates you will cease such actions. An admission of an understanding of your mistakes with believable assurances you will not re-engage in such actions may be the first step to being unblocked. I would note though, when you do get unblocked, whether because the block has expired or an unblock request is approved, that if you engage in such behaviour again, chances are very high you will be blocked for a longer period of time - up to and including indefinite (as warranted). In the meantime, you may wish to familiarize yourself with various of the policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia. I'd suggest starting here and then working your way through the rest. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

You appear to have been involved in a content dispute on the CueCat article. When content disputes develop, the best first step is to NOT edit war over the content. You were warned (above) after making three or more reverts, and continued to make an additional revert after the warning. A subsection of the edit-warring policy includes a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR) - which eventually lead to your temporary block.

When you encounter a content dispute, the best approach is to attempt to reach community consensus on the article talk page. Please be aware that these discussions can take several days, depending upon the availability of other interested parties. Where consensus cannot be found, Wikipedia also has several dispute resolution tools that can be used to request other parties to take a look at the material being discussed.

When your block expires, please discuss your desired changes on the article talk page, and if needed, utilize the various dispute resolution options. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay ADMIN UPPER LEVEL BAREK, are you following this mess? I keep pointing out errors and giving real references and only get harrassment back. Plus the editors for this have been flagged before for usignt he system wrong. This incorrect record of CueCat is hurting a very important patent portfolio and admins and editors are allowing it to go one.

read these post and points and see what i mean.(Factiod (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks Robert (Factiod (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC))

Trying to get the hang robert, bit I actually understand your response. call me slow. Sorry will do better. Just want to correct an incorrect 10 year opld record with the right inforamtion. Will learn and do better, sorry to Wiki and those effected. (Factiod (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Any time. Now, some more tips, if you want them. (1) to request unblock, read the big ~~pink~~ salmon/tan box above and use the template it shows. That'll attract review of your unblock request. (2) It seems you have a problem with citations, valid reliable sources and such. Click the links in the previous sentences to gain a bit more understanding of such. After that, if you've got questions, post 'em here and I'll answer them as quickly as RL permits. And finally, before engaging in another edit war, always stop to ask for help. There are plenty of us around who'll jump in to help out. There's even the Adopt a User program which would enable you to find a mentor of your own who you can turn to for help understanding the bazillion policies and guidelines that govern Wikipedia. I'm one such mentor (though my mentorship does come with a couple additional rules, such as civility and no edit warring), and at one point was the adoptee of another mentor. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey robert, where are the leaders- mentors now? I have posted error after error and still just get slammed with bias, bans, blocking and junk. WHY? this is not fiar, just or right and I am only correcting a 10 YEAR OLD MIS INFORMED RECORD.....(Factiod (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

What newly-published secondary sources are you correcting it with? —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred over the last HOUR I have submitted content and sources from an array of places updating this record. Each of you have chosen to ignore and rebuke. Nice job. AND as long as there are falsehoods and avoidance I will keep correcting the record.(Factiod (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Appeal

Really thought my first newbie experience would be here and really prepped with my research and facts. But WOW. The ------? I really don't know what to call it, but thanks Robert you shed some light and really just want this record corrected so I can move on to more and get it right and be a valuabe asset to the Ip Community at large and promote INNOVATION. But the Cuecat record is grossly wrong and the key fast were posted. Appreciate all the help guys.(Factiod (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and I regret that you have had a rocky start. One of our most important guidelines is to assume good faith of other editors. Read that, plus WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:3RR, and you will be well on your way to being a successful contributor here. I know nothing of the dispute, so if you want a neutral opinion, feel free to ask. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{tlx|unblock|reason=Help, I did not get how this worksFactiod (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)}} ==[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Factiod (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not get how all this works and am just trying to understand, learn and correct factual errors. I have all the links and reserach and need some help, but I have the facts correct, well research and have spent 14 months writing on this very topic so I would consider myself a true expert on this device. Help and unblock me and allow me to start over and mayeb get a MENTOR??? Help Factiod (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You might be unblocked if you will agree to wait for a talk page consensus before reverting the article again. Though you assert that the CueCat article has factual errors, you've so far left no indication of what the problems might be. You've engaged in no discussion at Talk:CueCat. Expressing your concerns on the talk page is acceptable but repeatedly reverting the article is against our policy. One of your changes makes a promotional assertion about the CueCat ('the FIRST scanning device ever created which ... ') for which you provide no reference. This kind of change is not helpful, and suggests you might be treating all those CueCat documents as gospel truth without adequately searching for third-party verification. Wikipedia does not defer to experts, we believe in using normally-reliable third parties such as books and newspapers. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mentorship

Hi again Factoid, I am willing to mentor you. But first, before you accept me as your mentor, I'd suggest that you read my user page to see if you think I'd be a good fit. As well, you should read this to get an idea of my expectations, how I can help you and how you can help yourself through the process. Let me know. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen

Cullen, I go to your profile and try to message you (or what I guess is messaging here) and I cannot even do that. Seems I can only post to this page. Is that how it works? What I am trying to update is the patent and history record of this device. Cuecat has now achieved over 115 patents, 1800 citiation and 184 country/state status with 68 patents in each one. Plsu many of the historical and IP stats about the use, adoption and such are just wrong. How does this ever get straightened out with out people who really don't have as many facts as I do, shutting it down. There are now 1000's of referrences and new apps based on Cuecat and I posted links, search strings and other items and it all was glossed over. Anyway taking kiddos to get costumes for Holloween and wife is staring me down hard and being here in the PC so long trying to figure this mess out. I can contribute and can do it well. I am a fast learner. HELP(Factiod (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Feel free to post on my talk page once your block has ended. Until then, this is the only page you can post to. Have fun with the kids. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CULLEN, thank you.  Now the kids are shuttled off to neighborhood Holloween Party, but I am insensed.

have you been reading this willful bias? Errors pointed out and generic response like "thats a primary source" yet, when you look at the definition of primary source and my 20 YEARS of praticing Intellectual Property Prosecution and someone hiding behind the keys calls the USPTO and the EUROPEAN WIPO a PRIMARY SOURCE ivolved in the process, but they allow links to some ones personal blog as a verification of another rival tehcnolgoies calim to be four years earlier and I point out the FEDERAL RECORDS and they call it NOT USABLE? SNIP" http://socialmediatoday.com/tungstenbranding/358212/how-reach-your-mobile-customer-using-qr-codes This reference constitues a valid link and the USPTO AND WIPO dont??"??(Factiod (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Issues with CueCat needing to be corrected (Factiod (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC))

To the various questions here is the short list of the issues with the CueCat history in general:

Note, I can post over 1000 links here, but I am pretty sure thats a no-no, but I am going to do the most important issues here: 1. CueCat was both a tethered and mobile device (see patents and hsitorical record) 2. CueCat was (a) tethered, (b) intergrated into mice (c) incorporated into cell phones and other mutations (see patent references, Microsoft records, press and such) 3. DigitalConvergence had 1200 employess between Dallas, Los Angeles, London and Hong Kong 4. The tehcnology was originally introduced as TheWWWand and Concerto (going back to 1992) 5. The patents surrounding CueCat now number 115 granted, several hundered still pending, 1800 Forward Citations, Patenst in 184 County/States via WIPO. EU and others 6. Patents have been licensed by companies such as Microsoft, Google, and many others (see SEC -RPX - S1 addendums to the licensing companies) 7. There are just under 2000 current scanning applications developed around the esisting patents and the original operating proposal of DigitalConvergence 8. CueCat won numerous Inventon and Technology Awards that are not mentioned (see links) 9. Many major Universities teach case Studies on Internet Business and adoption with CuecCat as the case study. 10. Most of the awards it won are MAJOR industry awards and not cited 11. The seciroty breach was verified in a JD Edwards audit to be only 40,000 users not the 140,000 quoted 12. Sec docs show that the security breach effected approximately 0.04 percent of the active CueCat users of 1,000,312 users at time of report.

All of these an over 100 more referneces with supporting links were provided from thrid party sources and it was all ignored.

Thats the problem in a nutshell.. How about some help and not predijuce???

How about reviewing all the links, or just go to USPTO and WIPO and search the Patent references and just how huge it has become.

These we all in the links I ammended before the blackballing.(Factiod (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This isn't helpful. What you want to do is to propose text for the article and a secondary source to support your proposed text. Or, alternatively, quote text that is currently in the article that you think is incorrect and provide a secondary source to support your view. Or, quote text currently in the article that is unsourced. I tried to read your version, and, putting aside the issue of sources, the writing is so poor it's very hard to read (sorry), so I gave up. And stop with the accusations of prejudice. It certainly won't help you get unblocked; nor will it help you once the block expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbbb23 you - my biased friend have an axe to grind. First the refernce not good enough, then I point out item by item some of the basic errors and you call them primary first, then get pointed out the correct resources and then you claim I am hard to understand and then you say I will get banned more? It it because I am a Jew? Whats your bias? Were you connected or are connect with Digital or a Rival technology? I have asked 3 times and you have avoided each time. Why?

Support of the text is sublective at best. BTW, tell me how this BS links supports the claim listed in CueCat and show as reference?

heres the Reference in the existing record::: The QR code,[8] invented four years before CueCat but popularized much later

and here is the LINK COPY:

(copyvio of http://socialmediatoday.com/tungstenbranding/358212/how-reach-your-mobile-customer-using-qr-codes redacted)

++++++\

and that is a QUALIFIED REFERENCE?

Yet, I send you correction from the records of the FEDERAL AND INERNATIONAL GOVERNING BODIES and you call them NOT USABLE??

This warrants an intervention and disiplinary action

What is your beef, axe and BIAS Bbbb23??? (Factiod (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

FWIW, I've flagged the reference to Davis' column in QR code as a possibly unreliable source. That will get more editors to take a look, vet the source, and look for replacements. —C.Fred (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GREAT FRED, but it still IS NOT STOPPING THE BIAS here. I am simply cleaning up a reacord that has been incorrect for a decade. Why all the CRAP? My reserach is valid. not biased, I have clearly stated I don't have any interests in the CueCat or DigitalConvergence, but one SINGLE ill-informed ROGUE is blocking this whole things and VIOLATING THE SPIRIT of Wiki and what it means to evolve and keep thing accurate and current. THIS IS A PROBLEM. This is BIAS and Harrassment and just wrong. Bbbb23 is hiding behind their computer playing games and playing GOD.

AND ALL OF YOU LURKING AND NOT DEFENDING CORRECTIONS are joing in bty being passive (Factiod (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

What bias? You made wholesale changes to an article. They were reverted. You were invited to discuss the changes and refused. You were blocked for failing to comply with the editing guidelines.

When you get unblocked—assuming you don't manage to shoot yourself in the foot and get yourself indefinitely blocked over the next 61 hours—I would encourage you to discuss your concerns at Talk:CueCat in a civil manner. Once consensus is reached—and you're likely to get it on some issues, but not everything—then revisions can be made in smaller chunks. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FRED maybe I am slow, but where is the INVITE to discuss the changes? Is there a special invite folder? Please point it out to the newbie like me? NOT a single person did such nor sent me a single message UNTIL AFTER BLOCKING. yes, I did get one from a BOt but I am new and did not understand what I was getting.

And you say wholesale change. I went to the existing record, which was different than the one NOW, and it was correct as a WHOLE and I made some few minor changes and then all of a sudden I am looking at a n even further changed document that was horrid wrong. The doc that was available when I addes my minor revision started like this:

CueCat barcode scannerThe CueCat (trademarked :CueCat) was a cat-shaped handheld barcode reader. The CueCat™, CueCode™ and the CRQ™ technology behind it was developed by J. Hutton Pulitzer in the spring of 1992 and was launched to much fan fare in the fall of 1999. Over 1,000,000 Internet users pick up and installed a CueCat within the first 30 days of release making it one of the fastest growing and adopted technologies of all time.[1]The device connected to computers using the PS/2 keyboard port and USB. The CueCat enabled a user to direct their web browser to a website for a product by scanning a proprietary patented barcode — called a CueCode™ or "cue" by Digital Convergence — appearing in an article or catalog or on some other printed matter. In this way a user could be directed to a web page containing related information without having to enter a URL. In addition, to the tethered CUECAT device, the software drivers used to operate the CueCat also worked on an Broadcast Audio Signal, TV broadcasters used an Audio CueCode™( audio tone in programs and/or commercials ) that when, attached to a computer (via an audio cable) will instantly direct their computer to the webpage being covered or sponsored by the broadcaster, i.e. remotely controlling the viewers computer through the television broadcast.

AND THEN SOMEHOW during my minor edits to what WAS a correct record except for some minor points, I was trying to add, the all of a sudden I get banned nd the bogus rife with junk post pops up like this?

The CueCat (trademarked :CueCat) was a cat-shaped handheld barcode reader developed in the late 1990s by the now-defunct Digital Convergence Corporation, which connected

SO HOW IN THE HELL, does a basically correct document I am making minor tweaks amnd adding better links to the 100 or so there, so to some paltry refernce with 8 bogus links???

HELP(Factiod (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It's been there at the top of this page in the warning you got about the three revert rule: "If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes…"

The text you were adding was not in any current version of the article. Particularly, the ™ symbols were absent from the text. Part of the reason you got blocked so quickly was because of adding all that material to the article.

Either you attempted to edit an old version of the text or otherwise inadvertently made a bigger change than you intended to, or you made a much bigger edit than you're admitting. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FRED I keep posting new and correct third party links and references? Why do they get ignored?(Factiod (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

So, Ed Johnson who has done another decline

So Ed, should I post the initial 2876 links here in one list for review, snince I cannot get directly to anyone with the ability and desire to review nin-biased?

Right now cannot even notify each person as it states , since banning ONLY lets me post here.(Factiod (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

All you have to do (for your unblock to be seriously considered) is to promise not to change the article again until you can persuade the other editors on the talk page. It's up to you. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TO EDJOHNSTON:

The editors of the page and NOT DOING THIER PART and checking the LINK. have you not read this line of stuff and looked at the MORE THAN QUALIFIED REFERENCES that I have posted? These are being glossed over and you are allowing it. This is not what Wiki is supposed to stand for and is supposed to NOT LET HAPPEN.

What are you going to do about it?(Factiod (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

WHERE ARE AYOU ED JOHNSTON? I keep pointing out errors and not a peep, yet you keep me blocked, thus wont allow the article to stand for itself and be checked link by link, yet you let bad limnks and false links stand? WHY MR ADMINSTRATOR?(Factiod (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This one single link may help

To all: here is a simple link that shows some of the times I reference: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Philyaw%2C+Jeffry+Jovan&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

Does this help? Since most of my links were of this direct and official, but yet I am still learning.

Plus there are over 10 hours of interviews done by Forbes Radio, ABC and others, How does one post that?

Help - I can improve this record acurately and vastly(Factiod (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The link is to a primary source and not helpful. You can post a link to an interview if it exists online by posting the URL here. (I'm assuming the interview, if online, is not a copyright violation (like YouTube). Copyright violations are not permitted.) Also, whatever you do, as I said above (you keep creating so many sections), connect the source to the material currently in the article or to material you wish to add (include the proposed material when you include the source).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 I ahve posted new link and new link after new link and you keep ignoring it. (Factiod (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This is a sample of impact and use of the patents for this device

here is the portfolio in action: http://blog.scanlife.com/2011/04/trend-reportinfographic/

Do this type of references help? (Factiod (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Given that it doesn't mention the CueCat, I'm not sure how it helps. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my take on it, too, while trying to figure out what the source itself is. I also don't see Factiod's point as he doesn't say what it is (other than "the portfolio in action", whatever that means).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Bbb23, let me CORRECT YOU... you called this a primary source, Lets see, the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT takes 3 years to start to approve the patents and must review them the WHOLE TIME and make sure they DONT CONFLICT with any others, and on top of that GRANTS THIS PORTFOLIO a status that is NUMBER 76 out of 8.1 MILLION RECORDS and you call that a PRIMARY SOURCE? That is poppy-cock and you are hiding behind keys?

NUMBER 76, that 7,914,000 patents it is AHEAD OF IN IMPORTANCE AND RANKING by the UNBIASED PARTY set aside to APPROVE the US patents and you call that A PRIMARY SOURCE?/

You did not answer the question Bbbb23 WERE YOU AN EMPLOYEE OR CONNECTED TO SOMEONE WHO GOT FIRED OR A COMPETITING TECHNOLOGY?? (Factiod (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Bbb23 this is for you...

So, you say thats a primary source? The link verifying each patent and you say it does not make it real and usable?

You are joking right?

You have an article riddled with inaccurate facts, quoting blogs and personal web pages AND you state that it's primary and you want a news source?

Were you an employee of Digital? Really, what is your beef? That existing article is so riddle with half truths and just bad references that you keep them listed and reject real facts from the actual granting authority?? Really?

I am not a casual surfer, but a professional investigator and fact checker and you are stating that, that first link as not a good one?

Thats what I mean by, having a biased opinion. IF YOU can be shown actual links to Federal documents that CANNOT be changed by any man on the street, yet you want to call a tech blog news, come on. Does that mean someone can go through wiki can delete any article and modify it because it was on a BLOG? See the error and bias?(Factiod (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

What I see is a person who, at least for now, should not be permitted to make edits to Wikipedia articles. You would do better to spend more time reviewing Wikipedia's polices and trying very hard to understand them rather than trying to change this particular article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you say I one should NOT be allowed to make edits. Yet, here I sit as a professional researcher and fact checker and you, are saying I should not be allowed to make edits? Why? Because I dis-agree with both your review and power to push ban and delete?

You should be ashamed. I have published over 2400 articles in my career and this is a prime example of authority gone wrong. That means bad press for a community supposed to be OPEN.

I point out facts and errors and you hide behind an adminstrators id?

Not quite right is it?

How does one reply to this? Bbb23 (Factiod (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

So Bbb23, let me CORRECT YOU... you called this a primary source, Lets see, the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT takes 3 years to start to approve the patents and must review them the WHOLE TIME and make sure they DONT CONFLICT with any others, and on top of that GRANTS THIS PORTFOLIO a status that is NUMBER 76 out of 8.1 MILLION RECORDS and you call that a PRIMARY SOURCE? That is poppy-cock and you are hiding behind keys?

NUMBER 76, that 7,914,000 patents it is AHEAD OF IN IMPORTANCE AND RANKING by the UNBIASED PARTY set aside to APPROVE the US patents and you call that A PRIMARY SOURCE?/

You did not answer the question Bbbb23 WERE YOU AN EMPLOYEE OR CONNECTED TO SOMEONE WHO GOT FIRED OR A COMPETITING TECHNOLOGY?? (Factiod (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

A 72-hour block isn't long enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SEE Bbbb23, you just refuse to focus on the facts and then you will not address the issues and correct the inaccurate info.

You keep side stepping the issue. But, what you are doing is creating a paper and digital trail and remember, to willingly mistate untruths as facts that harm a reputation or company or technology or individual are against WIKI rules and each time you are ALLOWING this to go on, no matter how long I keep presenting facts after facts and shoing you bad info and links in the record.

What is your bias and axe Bbbb23 who had the power to ban but not the professional reason to not improve the record?(Factiod (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you Fred

So thank you Fred for actually PROVING my point.

You see, in the original submission there were numerous links::: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10444432-56.html

Like this, and IT DOES MENTION CueCat - in fact CueCat reinvented and MS does hold a license on the patent protfolio (pulbic record)

BUT NO ONE CHECKED A SINGLE LINK, they just lambasted the post.

So see, each of you are not only proving my point but violating Wiki's very own rules.

So, how does it feel to hold the keys to the wrong facts? and hold back progress?(Factiod (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The article does not mention that MS holds the patent portfolio. "You can think of Microsoft Tag as CueCat 2.0, though this time, it doesn't require a special device." To get anything more from that than that Microsoft Tag is using the same concept/ideas as CueCat is in the realm of original research. I don't get anything from that to suggest that MS bought the patents. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred REALM OF ORIGINAL RESEARCH? The article itself calls it CueCat reinvented? Why are you NOT seeing that? Why are YOU supporting bogus links and references on the page to begin with?

Here is REFERENCE NUMBER & just for you FRED: http://boingboing.net/2005/06/12/two-million-cuecats-.html

Where is the site? Its bogus.... But I posted the links that were good. Explain that one FRED, Why the freaking bias about a 10 year old event????"?? (Factiod (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

So, CuteCat is a defunct technology, then, if Microsoft Tag is a reinvention and replacement of it? I don't follow your logic. —C.Fred (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just because a link has gone dead does not mean that it wasn't once valid. The link should—and has been—flagged as a dead link, but that doesn't invalidate it as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OKAY FRED, use technology and go to WAYBACK MAchine INTERNET ARCHICVES.

Not only does a verifiable reference SHOW up in the records for those dates (or any dates) but the refering link to what was the supposed original link for that is no existant. You see SOME ONE LOVE to link crap posted by a random user as NEWS and FACTS for CUECAT, but yet I - a legal professional in this matter, show Wiki, thus you and the AUTHORITY they have given you, the errors and show and produce REAL FACTS and you call them no good, and no matter the link is done. THE LINK WAS BOGUS AND SO WAS THE REFERER AND REFERENCE.

THIS IS BIAS AND HARRASSMENT Legally and otherwise and you are being cupable.(Factiod (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Please remember that this discussion is about a Wikipedia article, subject to Wikipedia guidelines. That includes WP:No legal threats. Please review that guideline and re-consider your last comment. —C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FRED, the issue here is the willful intent to keep wrong and damaging information posted. Why is that going on? I keep adding reference after reference, and the guy who blocked me was been warned about this very thing 3 times and yet I am the one who gets slammed. The way I read the legal warning is DO NOT WILLINGLY post or allow bad references or post. So help me understand why this is beign allowed on and on and on? I don't get it? I am pointing out a huge problem and bias here and its being ignored and just push buttoned off. Come on be fair and just (Factiod (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Here is a bogus example of this bogus editing

So, here you go.

Look at the Cuecat record. You see QRCode being listed as being invented 4 years before CueCat

here is the link: http://socialmediatoday.com/tungstenbranding/358212/how-reach-your-mobile-customer-using-qr-codes A PERSON BLOG NO LESS.

But I give to you, the actual dates in FEDERAL REFERING DOCUMENTS posted on the web for all to verify, and SHOW that is bogus and you bounce it back as PRIMARY?

Are you kidding? This is the SAME source CNN, CABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and other news sources ARE HELD TO OR FACE LIABEL CLAIMS and you call this FACT CHECKING?

Each and every time you reply and state way YOU ARE LEAVING a digital trail as to WHY you are INTENTIONALLY using BIAS?

More: (Factiod (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

YES Bbb23

Yes, you say I one should NOT be allowed to make edits. Yet, here I sit as a professional researcher and fact checker and you, are saying I should not be allowed to make edits? Why? Because I dis-agree with both your review and power to push ban and delete?

You should be ashamed. I have published over 2400 articles in my career and this is a prime example of authority gone wrong. That means bad press for a community supposed to be OPEN.

I point out facts and errors and you hide behind an adminstrators id?

Not quite right is it?

How does one reply to this? Bbb23 (Factiod (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Unblock

How can one, fight for what is right and keep trying to improve the record when all this is going on? I was wrongfully banned and have show valid reasons (Factiod (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Factiod (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have shown several major errors and they keep being ignored by Bbb23, this is wrong and not the spirit of Wiki, my points are VALID Factiod (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If the "spirit of Wiki" can be summed up in a few words, it's something like "making well-sourced edits with consensus", which is not what you were doing. Blindly re-adding your content without discussion - or despite discussion - is edit warring. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Do you acknowledge that you violated several Wikipedia guidelines, including the three-revert rule, in your attempt to edit the article? Do you agree to follow those guidelines in the future? —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FRED, I actually did not see the three REVERT rule. I am a newbie to Wiki, but not to this topic. I really did not see the rule and missed it. I am sorry and will not let happen again, but what is going on here is wrong.

I AM CORRECTING 10 year old out of date FACTS.... Come on..

(Factiod (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

NOT sure

Not sure I posted the request correctly, please forgive me, but I am trying.(Factiod (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The one I left up is correct. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Link and Reference

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000037.html

this link is quoted in(1) position for Cuecat record, yet the SEC report of DigitalConvergence SHOWS that publishers paid for the Cats to be mailed and they sent them AS A GIFT TO SUSCRIBERS and were not unsolicited, they were gifts.

Read SEC document here: http://www.secinfo.com/dRqWm.519k2.d.htm

This shows the USE OF PROCEEDS and the AUDITED statements that DIGITALCONVERGENCE did not pay for mailings and were the Publishers choice and Gifts to SUSCRIBERS only.

The record is INCORRECT::: (Factiod (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The link is to DigitalConvergence's stock offering. How does that show that DC earned revenue from publishers to mail the Cats to subscribers? —C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FRED, if you read the offering AS WITH ALL FEDERAL AUDITED DOCUMENTS OF AN IPO, they show the USE OF PROCEEDS and it shows LEGALLY AND VEERIFIED BY PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS the use of funds and NONE were expeded for mailing of CUeCat. Thus a BOGUS reference. Read the documents and link.(Factiod (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

How do you know that none of the $113 million in other expenses were postage for mailing the Cats? I'm looking at EX-27.1, the financial data schedule. —C.Fred (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or more to the point, the $10 million of selling, general, and administrative expenses for the six months ended 30 June 2000. I found the income statements in the S/1. —C.Fred (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FRED, if you look at the expenses for marketing they are not included. IF you read the statement of partners, you will CLEARLY read that FORBES, BELO, and others sent the Cuecats themselves to their suscribers, AND if you look at the dates of PRESS RELEASES that stikll exisit on the Net, you can see, THESE COMPANIES stating DigitalConvergence gave them CueCats for their suscribers, AND that THEY "the companies" mailed them to their suscribers. Reference after reference (Factiod (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

ANOTHER BOGUS REFERENCE

Reference 5 and 6 state the security comncerns, yet the refering link, when read only states there as an initial issues but it was not as stated , but became a widelty talked about issue. It absolves Digital and states it was overblown yet it is cited as a negative reference.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/nj747m13l58450w2/

Why not fix this one of 11 issues I have pointed out so far(Factiod (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

ANOTHER BOGUS REFERENCE

Reference 5 and 6 state the security comncerns, yet the refering link, when read only states there as an initial issues but it was not as stated , but became a widelty talked about issue. It absolves Digital and states it was overblown yet it is cited as a negative reference.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/nj747m13l58450w2/

Why not fix this one of 11 issues I have pointed out so far(Factiod (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

BOGUS REFERENCE CITED #13

In reference link to CueCat, reference 6, talks about Curiosity Killed the Cat, this website is only a secondary refering link and when fact checked backwards is only an origianla rticle by TDO on the war between Belo Broadcasting (an investor in DigitalConvergence) and how the two orginaztions TDO fought since thier failed merger happened, between the two publishing companies.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353485800850035

How about fixing this NOT CREDIBLE OR CURRENT 10 YEAR OLD BOGUS CRAP? (Factiod (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I SUBMITTED LINK #9

I submitted link #9 which shows the CUECAT technology coming back VIA Microsoft http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/microsoft_tag_the_return_of_the_cuecat.php

YET, this biased forum of people not willing to check facts and be fair LEFT THAT REFERENCE?

Why, Why takem one good reference OF OVER tons and over thousands I have and allow on paltry GOOD LINK and then ban me?

BOGUS BOGUS BOGUS thats why? This group and editors and admins are willingly partipating in bias and harm to this record and NOT allowing real facts and comments.

(Factiod (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Reading the reference, it says no such thing. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down

I tried to reach out to you and suggest how you could be successful as a Wikipedia contributor. Instead of reading, studying, understanding and agreeing to comply with our policies and guidelines, you have chosen to lash out at several experienced editors, accusing them of bad faith. The path you are on right now will ensure with a probability of 100% that you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project, and those who reject collaboration and choose the path of confrontation simply can't be successful here. The choice is yours. I urge you to choose a different path. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CULLEN, I have posted and posted relevant and real facts and they all keep getting blasted. And Kbb23 just ignores the issues and NOW I realize somehow even when I was added to what was a 98% correct document when I started SOMEHOW got turned into an 8 refernce article.

NOTE: the one I was editing was 98% correct and I was adding some better references and that article had the story and intellectual property correct, and it started with the sentence: The CueCat (trademarked :CueCat) was a cat-shaped handheld barcode reader. The CueCat™, CueCode™ and the CRQ™ technology behind it was developed by J. Hutton Pulitzer in the spring of 1992 and was launched to much fan fare in the fall of 1999. Over 1,000,000 Internet users pick up and installed a CueCat within the first 30

BUT SOMEHOW in the middle of my edits, it became a lame 8 referece page.

THAT WAS WHAT I WAS UPSET ABOUT. How can a basically correct article with all the correct references and history dissappear? That one was correct? I was just adding some simple facts and POOF it was a whole nother animal. Where did that oen go? that was why I am so enraged. Someone slipped a bogus one in - in between. Help find that correct article? I thought I had somehow deleted someone wonderful work. WHERE DID IT GO?(Factiod (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Ah, I see. You were editing the version that Ran kurosawa (talk · contribs) had edited. When Black Kite reverted his edits (edit summary for revert: "ev whitewashing and general POV; stick to the topic, stick to the facts"), that's what happened to the version you were working on. —C.Fred (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know RON and I was correcting the FILE THAT WAS THERE. then it went to an old file. I am a single user and everyone keeps avoiding the relevant facts and errors and posting. The file I was editing had tons of links and I looked at each and they WERE VALID........ whoever BLACK KITE was and what he did was wrong, the links are right and now there is a file with 2 good links, false info and 6 broken bad non exixtant links. SO HOW DID A SITE WITH TONS OF GOOD LINKS BECOME THIS CRAP NOW???(Factiod (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Slow down...

Hi Factoid, no one here is your enemy, so, please, calm your tone a bit and accept the help others are trying to give you. As indicated in the response to your latest unblock request and the comments above, Wikipedia is a community run by policies, guidelines and consensus. Take it slowly, give people time to respond, respond in kind calmly, and I'm sure you'll see much better results.

The other thing to keep in mind is that everyone here, including the administrators, are just volunteers - just like you and I. They have real life things to deal with and commit what time they can here when they can. Many are also busy helping a bunch of other editors and need to divide what time they have here amongst many editors. So, again, give people time to respond. I've worked with or went to for help or helped everyone who's responded to your questions, and I can assure you, each and every one of them is a very decent person who's really willing to try to help out - if you give them that opportunity. I'm sure you'll find that civility and explaining the content issues you see without accusations will go a lot farther in making people want to help you. I hope you take this to heart. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert, but now I see I was editing on a factually correct entry of CueCat and some where in the mess someone slipped in this existing 8 reference article full of junk. I over reacted. Maybe someone can just post the one that was there and then I can submit my added links. But the one that is there now is junk and bogus. What happend to the one that started with???

The CueCat (trademarked :CueCat) was a cat-shaped handheld barcode reader. The CueCat™, CueCode™ and the CRQ™ technology behind it was developed by J. Hutton Pulitzer in the spring of 1992 and was launched to much fan fare in the fall of 1999. Over 1,000,000 Internet users pick up and installed a CueCat within the first 30

SOMEHOW now its some other really bad and broken post.

Help and I am sorry(Factiod (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

"Factually correct" is a debatable description of the version you were editing. Two editors had reverted the wholesale changes that an editor had made to the article from 25 to 29 October, noting POV concerns with the edits. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll expound a bit on what C.Fred said. In some cases, when there is differing information out there, each from reliable sources, then all sets of information must be presented. Not the one you think is correct - nor the one I think is correct. This may be an instance of that, in which case, it will take discussion, calmness and hard work to collaboratively come up with a solution. One method is to pick one section and point out "I've got more info, which contradicts what's here" then provide a link and a short summary of what you see is the difference. From there you can work out content changes with the other editors - it may be add the new content... it may be replace the old content entirely... it may be leave the content as is. Once that section is complete, move on to the next. It's much easier to tackle one issue at a time. Then review the article as a whole to make sure it all fits together.

But now here's the part a lot of new editors (and even experienced ones) find difficult - waiting for other editors to have the time to evaluate what they've posted (which is part of the reason why tackling it one issue at a time helps somewhat). You've got to then give other editors some time... sometimes even a few days, in which time everyone has a chance to respond and work out the issues together. Hope you choose this path. Improving articles is always appreciated - but the method of doing it is just as important. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, NOW this GRUMP character is accusing me of being some ROn, how is this CRAP working together and why is NOT ANDY the GRUMP not banned for harrassing a newbie like me.

Robert, NOW this GRUMP character is accusing me of being some ROn, how is this CRAP working together and why is NOT ANDY the GRUMP not banned for harrassing a newbie like me.(Factiod (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Ran kurosawa

Please explain any connection you may have with User:Ran kurosawa. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: given this [1] edit by kurosawa, it is difficult not to assume you are the same person. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy KNOCK OFF THE CRAP, you can look at my IP and see I am not the same person. You Andy are the one with Multiple Ids. I have one and my IP address PROVES IT. Knock off the petty crap(Factiod (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

(edit conflict)Incivility will not win an argument. Nor get you unblocked. In actuality, it may end up extending your block. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE NO IDEA WHO RAN KUIORWSA is - I am only UPDATING A RECORD. Now are you just pulling names out of thin air?

HELP ADMINS

HELP>>>

(Factiod (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I edit Wikipedia under a single user name. Or can you provide evidence to the contrary? Of course not. Another baseless allegation. Anyone with basic technical knowledge can find ways to use different IP addresses, however. I suggest that you read the link I provided. Can you explain how you and 'kurosawa' both come to be researching the same obscure topic at the same time, using the same sources? So, please answer the question, do you have any link with 'kurosawa', or are we confronted with an astonishing coincidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I see the connection you see, but the question was already answered (short form: no) - no need to re-ask. That then leaves the onus on us as to whether we think a checkuser/sock investigation is warranted (and on them to determine if the situation warrants such). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edit Wikipedia under a single user name. Or can you provide evidence to the contrary? Of course not. Another baseless allegation. Anyone with basic technical knowledge can find ways to use different IP addresses, however. I suggest that you read the link I provided. Can you explain how you and 'kurosawa' both come to be researching the same obscure topic at the same time, using the same sources? So, please answer the question, do you have any link with 'kurosawa', or are we confronted with an astonishing coincidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HERE YOU GO AGAIN ANDY:

1. I have NO connection to a RON 2. I do have information on the CceCat 3. Its currently a HOT video on YOUTUBE with files that are being released the inventor of CueCat 4. I checked WIKI to see what it said 5. The record was pretty good and looked current 6. I added stuff I have links and references and then some bogus old site appeared 7. I AM NOT CONNECTED TO RON 8. THERE IS NEW STUFF ON WEB, VIDEOS 9. LOOK at www.Youtube.com/therealJovan 10. DO you homework folks

I had the link sent to me, I watched, I check wiki and decided to help wiki and edit\ and now all there is - is this clandestine BSBSBSBS

I got notifed because I am wrapping uop a book I have reseacrhed for months on DOT COM CRASHES..(Factiod (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

"HELP ADMINS, HELP", you cry. Several experienced editors have offered you kind advice and generous offers of help. You have spurned their offers, continued on your confrontational path and now when preliminary evidence of what we call sockpuppetry has been presented, you fail to refute it in any convincing way, and instead resort to attacking a very experienced editor like AndyTheGrump. Why do you persist in digging your hole deeper? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" Its currently a HOT video on YOUTUBE". No it isn't - the linked YouTube account was created on Oct 19th, and has had 680 views. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANDY, what is your issue? YES this is IN FACT A HOT TOPIC - do you not see the crap here? What is your problem? Why not address all the valid thrid party references and links that have been added to this thread JUST TODAY??? Why grump, be proactive and correct the record?(Factiod (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

What is this ANDY doing??

COME ON GUYS:

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

I edit Wikipedia under a single user name. Or can you provide evidence to the contrary? Of course not. Another baseless allegation. Anyone with basic technical knowledge can find ways to use different IP addresses, however. I suggest that you read the link I provided. Can you explain how you and 'kurosawa' both come to be researching the same obscure topic at the same time, using the same sources? So, please answer the question, do you have any link with 'kurosawa', or are we confronted with an astonishing coincidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HERE YOU GO AGAIN ANDY:

1. I have NO connection to a RON 2. I do have information on the CceCat 3. Its currently a HOT video on YOUTUBE with files that are being released the inventor of CueCat 4. I checked WIKI to see what it said 5. The record was pretty good and looked current 6. I added stuff I have links and references and then some bogus old site appeared 7. I AM NOT CONNECTED TO RON 8. THERE IS NEW STUFF ON WEB, VIDEOS 9. LOOK at www.Youtube.com/therealJovan 10. DO you homework folks

I had the link sent to me, I watched, I check wiki and decided to help wiki and edit\ and now all there is - is this clandestine BSBSBSBS

I got notifed because I am wrapping uop a book I have reseacrhed for months on DOT COM CRASHES..(Factiod (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

YouTube is not an acceptable source. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ONE OF YOU JUST posted wanted to see YOUTUBE PROOF, so what is the real deal???

And I DID NOT OFFER YOUTUBE as proof, ONLY informed GRUMP that, that is where I found the INFO and DECIDED to check WIKI, found an okay file and the UPDATED A LITTLE

THEN GOT RAPED HERE OVER AND OVER FOR TRYING TO ADD(Factiod (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

HERE IS YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU

http://www.digitalconvergence.com/news/index.html

(copyvio removed)

Come on guys you are IGNORING FACTS......... and violating the spirit of WIKI (Factiod (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

YOU post false but NOT AWARDS?

 Deleted CopyVio from here[2] ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

++++++

How many you need guys???

where is this in the record and VERIFIED ON CODIE SITE?? (Factiod (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Looks just like a press release complete with press contact and phone number. Press releases are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, because they are not independent of the company. The same goes for "news" stories that are simple reprints of press releases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHERE is this now? It was there?

This was there? and Verified, where is it now? The company's :CueCat optical reader is a 2001 recipient of a laureate medal of honor from the Computerworld Honors Program, recognizing the device as an information technology innovation benefiting society. In March 2001, :CRQ technology was the recipient of the Software and Information Industry Association's 2001 Codie Award for "Best Reference Tool." Showcasing the industry's finest products and services, SIIA Codie Awards honor excellence in the software and information industry.

(Factiod (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Cullen, ALL the releases can be found on the various PUBLIC COMPANY WEBSITES. Fred asked "How do you know Digital didn't pay for postage" which is a WRONG FACT REF (1) on the site. ANd I point out the sec and the company statements themselves. THUS THE REFERNECES. Plus these are NOT current Press releases, these are 10 years old, thus they DEFACTO cannot be false or edited just to POST ON WIKI. Thus, they are relevant to WIKI, because they are a 10 year time machine back to the FACTS.. (Factiod (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

We don't accept press releases as reliable sources no matter how old they are. No way, no how, not gonna happen. Not on this article, and not on any article anywhere on Wikipedia. Forget about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HOW ABOUT THIS ? WHY DELETED?

This was in the post I saw and I was able to verify from three sources INCLUDING COMPUTER WORLD AND THE SMITHSONIAN, yet BLACK KITE deleted and put up some bogus article?? http://events.computerworld.com/ehome/index.php?eventid=16786&tabid=21121&categoryid=57262& http://www.cwhonors.org/ http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_4.asp http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_4a.asp?search=&cat=Media&year=2001&Submit2=Search http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_4a_detail.asp?id=4259

READ

SNIP

CueCat™ Reader to Receive 2001 Laureate Medal From Computerworld Honors Program Digital:Convergence™ :CueCat Reader Recognized as Information Technology Innovation With Positive Impact on Society

Deleted CopyVio from here[3]

(Factiod (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Lets Discuss this HUGE MISSED FACT

ARCHIVES ON-LINE

SEARCH THE COLLECTION For information on all members of the Collection, search by Category, Company Name, Nominating Company, Application, Country or Keywords according to your area of interest.

CueCat

Digital:convergence.com Lincoln, RI US

Year: 2001 Status: Laureate Category: Media Arts & Entertainment Nominating Company: JD Edwards

:CueCat technology allows media companies, manufacturers and virtually

all organizations to link their printed content and advertisements as well as their products directly to web pages deep within their web sites. The technology reduces the need for time-intensive input of web site addresses and web navigation, allowing Internet users to quickly and easily obtain relevant information or conduct e-commerce activities. The

CueCat reader, a hardware device similar in size to a computer mouse,

generates a digital signal when it is used to swipe proprietary codes called "print cues" in print media or to swipe barcodes on consumer products. :CueCat technology empowers media companies and corporate advertisers to provide their consumers with better service by enhancing their content and advertisements and transforming print media or items bearing print cues or barcodes into powerful new editorial, advertising, promotional or e-commerce opportunities.

The

CueCat reader was launched in a nationwide rollout of the technology in

August 2000. It is distributed along with its :CRQ software free to the public. Approximately 10 million :CueCat devices and approximately 10 million CD-ROMs containing the :CRQ software will be distributed by March 31, 2001. As of the end of November, 2000, more than one million users in the U.S installed :CueCat devices.

RadioShack Corporation produces the :CueCat devices and distributes them along the :CRQ CD-ROMs in more than 7,000 RadioShack retail outlets throughout the U.S. A mobile, wireless version of the

CueCat is now available as a result of our partnership with the A.T.

Cross. Called the Cross Convergence pen, Cross has produced a quality writing instrument that also has the print-to-web functionality of the

CueCat reader. Other wireless versions of the :CueCat reader are in

development.

The volume of online information available on the Internet is expanding at

an unprecedented pace. This growing volume has made it increasingly difficult for users to navigate the Internet. This volume often makes finding relevant information a frustrating and time-consuming experience for the user. By way of example, studies have shown that if a user has to click more than three times to reach the page he or she is looking for, the search abandonment rate increases by 150 percent. As web sites continue to proliferate and grow in size and complexity, users need a more precise tool that takes them directly to a specific web page deep within a web site. That tool is the :CueCat reader.

The :CueCat reader is a hardware device similar in size to a computer mouse. It generates a digital signal when it is used to swipe proprietary codes called "print cues" in print media, or to swipe barcodes on consumer products. One swipe of a print cue can take a user deep into the web where the pages URL is so many characters long it would have taken considerable searching to reach it normally. The :CueCat reader reduces the need for time-intensive input of web site addresses and web navigation, allowing Internet users to quickly and easily obtain relevant information or even conduct e-commerce activities. From a business perspective, the technology empowers media companies and corporate advertisers to enhance their content and advertisements and to transform print media or items bearing print cues or barcodes into powerful new editorial, advertising, promotional or e-commerce opportunities.

According to Blue Planet and CNN, there are more than 500 Billion pages on the World Wide Web. Search engines only cover about 1 Billion of them. The rest is known as the “deep web”. Search engines are like a compass, pointing the Internet user in a general direction during a search, and providing potentially thousands of selections. :CueCat technology functions more like a Global Positioning System for the Internet. A cue can take a reader deep into the Internet, and directly to a specific page. In the example below, a search engine given the keywords “Hazardous material AND Airlines” yielded 441 web pages to pick though.

The Nov. 26 edition of Parade Magazine ran a short article about every-day items that may be dangerous if packed in their luggage on an airplane trip. A cue is included that goes to the Federal Aviation Administration’s web site for a specific listing of such items at http://cas.faa.gov/cas/these.html

The :CueCat reader enables an Internet user to swipe our print cues to

link the user to a particular web page designated by the publisher or advertiser. With the swipe of a :CueCat reader, users are immediately directed to more detailed information impractical to include in print copy. Now traditional media can provide readers who have a general interest in a subject with the information they seek, and with our cue provide a direct link to additional information readers with a high level of interest in that subject are seeking. For example, our technology can be used in the following ways:

- For many readers, knowing the outcome and highlights of a Super Bowl is all they want to know. But for more avid football fans, our cues can now directly link them to web pages that provide play-by-play analysis, streaming video and other detailed information that is normally too time-consuming and cumbersome to find.

- In Forbes' September 2000 BEST OF THE WEB issue, General Motors placed a print cue in its Corvette ad that linked the user to a web page featuring the Corvette Z06 model. Without our technology, accessing this web page would have required a user to click through at least four intermediate pages after entering the General Motors web page, or to enter a lengthy web page address.

- A travel agency can insert a print cue in a travel brochure or pamphlet, which launches an Internet user's web browser to a web page that provides additional information about a particular travel destination or enables the user to make reservations or obtain special pricing packages.

We have compiled a massive database that links existing barcodes, including UPC, ISBN, EAN and other codes, to web sites, thereby enabling manufacturers to utilize their existing barcodes for advertising and other marketing purposes. There are approximately 60 million active barcodes that, if swiped with the :CueCat reader, will take the user to a related web site through our system. When a user of the

CueCat reader swipes the barcode on an item which has been entered

into our database, the Internet user is linked to a specified web page related to that product. For example, the existing barcode on a prescription drug bottle from a pharmacy could now direct the recipient's web browser to the drug manufacturer's web site containing information regarding the illness for which the drug was prescribed, side effects of the drug, and additional products that may be useful in treating the illness. Because the

CueCat reader reads substantially all barcodes and does not require

consumer goods manufacturers to alter product labels in any way, our solution is an inexpensive and unobtrusive way of turning an existing product label into a powerful new marketing tool.

In addition, we have begun developing customized applications of our technology to address specific needs of industry, education and other users. For example, placing a print cue on policyholder cards would allow an insurance company to handle service needs of policyholders through its web site rather than through insurance company service representatives. As a result, policyholders would experience a dramatic improvement in the level of service and the insurance company would realize a substantial reduction in service center expense levels. :CueCat technology allows virtually any item to become Internet Enhanced.

In the just the first three months since its launch into the marketplace, more than one million consumers have installed the

CueCat reader and its accompanying :CRQ software

Digital:Convergence plans to distribute up to 30 million :CueCat readers and :CRQ CD-ROMs by the end of 2001. Additionally, a wireless version of the :CueCat reader called the Cross Convergence pen became available to consumers in December. The Cross Convergence pen is the result of Digital:Convergence partnering with AT Cross. Additional wireless designs will begin appearing on the market in early 2001.

Over the last several years, several attempts have been made to link

traditional media (broadcast and print) with the Internet. It hasn’t been that long ago since advertisers began including web addresses, usually simple home pages, in their printed advertising. More recently, magazines and newsletters have included web addresses at the end of articles, or in pointing readers to related sites. In almost all cases, these URLs cannot send the reader directly to the relevant web page deep in the Internet. The :CueCat reader is the first nationally deployed “print-to-web” convergence solution.

CueCat technology is not designed to

replace going to a homepage by typing www.companyname.com. But most people searching the web are not looking for a homepage. They want information that is usually located several levels (or clicks) or deeper in web sites. Typically, the deeper you go, the longer and more complicated the URL. The :CueCat reader eliminates all the clicking and scrolling, taking the user directly to a site. In the example below, the web page has a URL that is more than 100 characters long.

The Nov. 19 Dallas Morning News ran a sports story about the Dallas Mavericks defeat of the Grizzlies. The story included a cue that, when swiped with a :CueCat reader, goes to an Internet page with the results of an on-line poll about Mavs' owner Mark Cuban's behavior toward NBA officials.

http://dmnweb.dallasnews.com/polls/comments.asp?HdUniqueVal ue=poll11162000122249&comments=View+Comments

While there have been other attempts to develop print-to-web technologies, they have not received a great deal of acceptance by consumers. These other approaches require consumers to purchase scanners that cost as much as $100 each, whereas the :CueCat reader and its software are free. Additionally, while other technologies read their own proprietary code, they do not read product codes like the :CueCat does.

The results of the :CueCat deployment have exceeded the company’s

initial expectations for the technology. Our stated goal is to become the industry standard in print-to-web convergence technology. We believe that the :CueCat technology is becoming the market standard because: - The :CueCat reader has the first-mover advantage, beating alternative technologies to rapid consumer adoption. In the first three months since its introduction, more than one million American consumers have installed a :CueCat reader and its software. At the current distribution and adoption rates, there will be 30 million :CueCat readers in American consumers’ hands in 2001. :CueCat technology is being accepted and adopted because it doesn’t require the consumer to change media habits. Today, Internet addresses (URLs) are commonplace on advertisements in newspapers and magazines. Additionally, an increasing number of publications are providing readers with related URLs at the end of articles or as part of a story. Our proprietary cues are used in much the same manner. If a reader is interested in learning more about a particular topic where the publication has provided a cue, he moves to the computer and uses the :CueCat reader instead of typing in the URL.

- Mobile versions of the :CueCat reader devices will be available by the end of 2000. The :CueCat reader are technological “training wheels” for using :CRQ print-to-web technology. Starting in November, a wireless version of the :CueCat device is available in the form of a pen from AT Cross. The :Cross Convergence pen can hold as many as 150 printed cues and product codes, and download them to a personal computer. Digital:Convergence is working on many other wireless versions of the :CueCat reader, some of which will be available during the first quarter of 2001. The company is also looking at how :CRQ technology can be integrated into portable devices such as cellphones and personal digital assistants.

- From a business perspective, the company objective has been to establish the technology as the primary means for newspaper and magazine publishers, and other mass media companies, as well as corporate advertisers, manufacturers, retailers, catalog publishers, financial services companies, healthcare organizations and educational institutions, to link their publications and products to the Internet. To this end, several publications have begun using the :CueCat reader’s printed cues as regular parts of their editorial content. These include Forbes, Wired, Media Week, Ad Week, Brand Week, and Gear magazines, as well as The Dallas Morning News, The Providence Journal, and The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. RadioShack and IBM are using the technology in their catalogs. Additionally, there are several other magazines and newspapers that have licensed :CueCat technology and will launch it within the next several months.

One of the most difficult obstacles to achieving the :CueCat reader’s

goals was ensuring an effective and well-managed distribution system for the technology. RadioShack Corporation has proven to be that and more. They are an outstanding partner, given that 98 percent of America lives within five miles or five minutes from one of RadioShack’s more than 7,000 stores. Thanks to RadioShack, :CueCat readers are available free anywhere in the United States.

In late April, 2000, Digital:Convergence submitted an S-1 to the Securities and Exchange Commission, putting the company into what is informally called the “quiet period.” During this period, the company is precluded from doing anything promotional that the SEC may interpret as preselling its securities. Launching a new technology in a quiet period is challenging as everything the company does, or its executives say, is under scrutiny. The situation requires that every promotional issue and external communication (press releases, media interviews, etc.) had to be coordinated and evaluated by the company’s legal counsel to insure compliance. As a revolutionary new product that makes access to the Internet easier for hundreds of thousands of consumers, the :CueCat reader has had substantial publicity and coverage in local, national and vertical trade press – so much that it was the subject of an article in The Wall Street Journal

(Factiod (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

A word about copyright infringement

Please do not copy text from other websites wholesale when such text is under copyright. That includes Digital:Convergence's press release page and the individual releases. —C.Fred (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of text

At this point, it appears to me that you've succeeded in irritating pretty much every editor you've encountered here, and now you persist in posting massive walls of text that probably no one will have the time to read carefully. You show no signs whatsoever of working collaboratively with others, so I suggest that other editors do what I am doing - keep an eye on Net Talk Live!, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/J. Hutton Pulitzer and CueCat. I am putting those items on my watch list so that I can help insure that Wikipedia isn't used to advance a personal agenda. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. And since this is about facts: here you go

FRED, go to USPTO.gov and SEARCH TRADEMARKS

and you will FIND

ALL THE DIGITALCONVERGENCE ARE ABANDONDED including ALL COPYRIGHT and are therefore in the public domain

Thank you for the notice, but since I am an IP litigator, investigator and prosecutor I DO KNOW THE LAW AND ITS USES

DO your home work on the expired copyright, marks and such abandonded by DC SNIP

Serial Number Reg. Number Word Mark Check Status Live/Dead 1 75857649 DIGITALCONVERGENCE.:COM TARR DEAD 2 75528253 2466734 DIGITALCONVERGENCE.:COM TARR DEAD Serial Number Reg. Number Word Mark Check Status Live/Dead 1 76115136 :CUECAT TARR DEAD 2 76094794 :CUECAT TARR DEAD

Serial Number Reg. Number Word Mark Check Status Live/Dead

1 76122777 :CRQCHAT TARR DEAD 2 76122052 ON :CRQ TARR DEAD 3 76115137 :CRQ TARR DEAD 4 76094775 :CRQ TARR DEAD 5 76031517 C.R.Q. "SEE OUR :CUE. ZAP!... YOU'RE THERE!" TARR DEAD 6 76011829 CRQ TARR DEAD 7 75635961 2319156 CRQ TARR DEAD

NOTE THE DEAD PART: I also have 3188 such references on their marks.

UNLIKE THIS EDITING FRENZY, I know my stuff on this. (Factiod (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

OPEN COMMENT TO EDITORS

I have continually answered quesetions and presented facts only to be hit with ban, banned, blocked and such. And accused of being some other user.

Please be advised, you are avoiding facts and abusing your rights to edit and block content.

I have presented MORE than enough facts here.

But I am appalled at the arrogance and blind eye to facts and the abuse of this system.

You chose to NOT look at links and investigate and not your angry?

Who should be angry? I tell you who. The users of wiki, and just like ANY open forum this point is now in the public domain and can be used in any written work. This thread shows just how petty this can become and how real facts can be ignored. Thanks for the content. (Factiod (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This free volunteer project is an enormous success and offers 3.8 million informative articles in English and millions of articles in many other languages. It is the fifth most popular website in the world, and has more original educational content by far than any other website in the world. Our success demonstrates that we know what we are doing. We have given you chance after chance to participate, and you have spurned every offer we've made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk access disabled

You have not used your talk page for good faith negotiation of an unblock, so I have disabled your talk page access for the remainder of the 72-hour period. Please use this time to become familiar with Wikipedia policies. Further options for appealing your block are given at WP:GAB. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cue cat edits

Hello Factiod I see you have made comments and changes to the cuecat record. I have posted for discussion changes to the cue cat record. Wooudl you please join the discussion and add your comments? thank you (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Thank each of you, wiki editors and such, for giving me such great pointers and also for the direct emails of encouragement in learning this process. Shabbat Shalom - and since it's Friday I plan to make my additions and updates to the record on Monday. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Factoid can you help me?

Factoid can you help?

I posted to Cue cat as I said I would. Once again Bbb23 undid my work as he has done to all other. But in the process of dismantleing my work he left out the Codie Ward for cue cat. Would you look over my links for the award and consider improving the file of cue cat on my behalf for the codie award? Seems, me being new and female is hurting me. Can you help improve the cue cat file? I have left the links and info in the discussion page. Thanks ProofPlus Professional Researcher 16:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)