Talk:Víctor Celorio

Neutrality

The article has been nominated twice for deletion and for good reasons. The persons who have created the article and mostly contributed to it seem to have interest in no other articles than promoting this particular subject. See the edit list of Don verchon, Llambert, BadBull - they seem to be sock puppets. → Aethralis 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the second time was a formality on reversing the deletion, not a second nomination for deletion. Those editors do seem to all have the same interest, but different enough styles that they're unlikely to be sockpuppets. Dicklyon 05:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

I'm trying to make all rigth on the article but it indicated that needs more links to this article , then I add links on other pages in wich all I wrote only indicates the aportation to the subject and links to Victor Celorio. The article was nominated to deletion because it needed sources of the information , when it was fixed , the votes change to Keep. If you are nominating for deletion because I only work in this article , and the votes of Don Verchon and Lambert , it is not the article wich it's wrong , the article fulfill the guide lines of the wikipedia.--BadBull 19:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to do it all yourself. You can leave the editorial tags like "orphan" and wait and see if anyone else finds a good reason to link to it. Nobody is recommending deletion at this point, so don't let those tags bother you. Dicklyon 05:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

What matters is the objectivity of the content, not how many articles the editors have written. This argument is not only silly: it runs contrary to the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia which is written and corrected freely by volunteers, not by self-appointed police of other people's intentions. Show me where is my article not objective, and I will correct it.

Actually, wikipedia is run by self-appointed police of other people's intentions, and one way to get a feeling for people's intentions is to look at their editing history. Live with it. Dicklyon 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Tags

I am forced to object to the activities performed by Ckatz against me in the following articles:

PRINT ON DEMAND / INSTABOOK / VICTOR CELORIO

The editor in question has shown repeatedly a very strong bias against my entries in those articles. He either erases my entries without explanation or he tries to disqualify the articles in which I've participated by placing unfounded tags without any concrete proof or evidence. The implications of his tags are that there is something wrong or false with those entries, when every assertion I've made has been backed by independent references that comply with the requirements set by Wikipedia. I have gone so far as to reference just about EVERY SINGLE LINE I write to make sure of this.

I quote Wikipedia itself: "The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors."

However this editor, for unexplained reasons all of his own, has been going out of his way to erase my entries and/or tag the articles in which I participate.

I have asked him why he is doing this since InstaBook is a US Manufacturing company referenced in at least 2 of the most important encyclopedias of printing technologies, such as "The Handbook of Digital Publishing" of the Rochester Institute of Technology; it holds some crucial patents in the process known as Book on Demand, and has been reviewed by dozens of articles in the most important and relevant media, including the Seybold Report, The New York Times, Forbes, etc. Historically, it was the first company in the world to place print on demand equipment in bookstores, both here in the US and in other countries. Several companies that are mentioned in the PRINT ON DEMAND article have licensed InstaBook's technology. Víctor Celorio is the inventor of that technology.

Ckatz has refused to answer my questions and has in turn tagged my articles, again, without any explanation at all.

It seems to me a blatant attempt at censorship and a undeniable bias against me personally and/or against the subject of those articles for unknown reasons.Llambert (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Point

I think Llambert makes a good point. It is strange that the same editor Ckatz goes around erasing or tagging the contributions of Llambert and refuses to give any answers as to why. Worst of all, it looks like Ckatz is working in tandem with another 2 editors. The same 3 editors are chasing Llambert. And I don't understand the reason: I've checked all contributions made by Llambert and they follow Wikipedia guidelines. So is not the form that Ckatz seems to object, but the content. However, Ckatz hasn't been able to find anything wrong with the content provided by Llambert, therefore the tag to the articles seems geared just to smear them. I think Llambert should launch a formal complaint with Wikipedia to find out what is going on.Playa27 (talk)

I was going to simply remove your message because it does not comply with WP:TALK (this page should be used only to discuss improvements to the article); if anyone would like to remove this section, including my comment, please feel free to do so. However, for now I will simply comment that it is clear (see Special:Contributions/Playa27) that you are not a disinterested editor, and you do not understand the policies that apply to information added on Wikipedia (see WP:POLICY). Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? According to the talk page guidelines, this is exactly the place to expose the type of issues that it seems you are trying to hide. It is the place to talk about what is being done to the article and why. Why does it bother you that I suggest that Llambert should ask for an investigation into the matter? What are you trying to hide? Playa27 (talk)

Please use four tildes to sign your comments (see WP:SIGNATURE). Do you have a suggestion to improve the article? If so, make it. If not, please do not comment here (see WP:NOTFORUM). Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop issuing commands. You are not the boss of anybody here, and besides that, most of your commands are just plain wrong, such as when you ordered Llambert to stop using a perfectly valid reference, or when you insist that a US Patent should not even be mentioned in an article... For your information, I can sign with 3 or 4 tildes, or none at all. 4 tildes are the preferred method, that's all. And so far, you are the one making comments not related to the article. Playa27 (talk)

Re your Third Opinion request: I have removed the Third Opinion request which was made regarding this dispute. The Third Opinion project is for resolution of content disputes, whereas this is a conduct dispute. Let me suggest making a request or report at WP:WQA, which is roughly the same thing as the Third Opinion project, except for conduct disputes. (The procedure there is, however, different, so be sure to read all the instructions.) Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Victor Celorio. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.forbes.com/business/1999/06/04/feat2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)