Talk:Víctor Celorio

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutral

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutral

message: 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)
thread_title: Tags

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Victor Celorio. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified