User talk:Walklooker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:3O Walklooker (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Trusted Computing. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Scientus (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Scientus, please enumerate which aspects of my contribution were not factual or fair, or are biased. You state that you removed my contribution to "Trusted Computing" because you believe it constitutes advertising or promotional material. In fact I did my best to constructively improve Wikipedia's coverage of trusted computing, describing even the controversy and leaving all previous criticism untouched, because I am an expert in trusted computing. I followed Wikipedia's guidelines, even posting a draft of my contribution before changing the main page. I hear comments from newcomers interested in trusted computing that the previous version, which you have reinstated, does not satisfy their curiosity. It does not describe the context or development of trusted computing, or adequately describe the essential features of the technology, or the technical problems, or both sides of the controversy surrounding trusted computing, or even why the technology is called trusted computing. Walklooker (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request:

Disclaimers: Although I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian, this is not a Third Opinion in response to the request made at WP:3O, but is merely some personal observations and/or information about your request and/or your dispute.

Comments/Information: I have not removed your request from the Third Opinion Project page even though our project guidelines say, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can been reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." It may, however, be difficult to find a Third Opinion Wikipedian who is willing to give an opinion, because the situation here just isn't really the one for which the project exists. (One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'.") You might be more successful if you were to ask for help at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, make a Request for Comments perhaps using the {{rfctag|sci}} template on the Talk:Trusted Computing page, or ask for help on the talk page of one of the projects listed at the top of that talk page . If you do that, though, be sure to retract your Third Opinion request (just remove it the same way you added it, noting in the edit summary that you are retracting it to try something else), so you can't be accused of forum shopping.

Note to other 3O Wikipedians: I have not yet "taken" this request, removed it from the active request list at the WP:3O page, or otherwise "reserved" it, so please go ahead and opine on it if you care to do so. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

First of all, I have no problem with the edits of User:Scientus. They are reasonable and well justified in the edit summaries.

I do have a problem with Walklooker's assertion that Scientus "won't engage." Scientus' contributions clearly show evidence of logging into Wikipedia only once every month or so. You must be patient and wait. Nobody can be forced to participate here.

Therefore, I consider this request closed, and I am removing it. Please feel free to re-instate the request when Scientus logs in again and responds. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)