Talk:MVDDS dispute/Archive 1

message: I am adding them as we speak.  Macrhino 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna upload a new version in a bit which makes the bibliography follow the template:reflist form. This will also make the inline citations work.  nadav 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding references 

message: I really don't want to have to put an :Template:POV tag on this article.  Text should not be implicitly against Northpoint. For example:
In order to secure the licenses without auction, Northpoint hired a series of lobbying companies (Podesta Mattoon, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Daine Allbaugh, Livingston Group) to get congress to force the FCC chairman's hand. MDS America on the other hand, was willing to go to auction and hired Alston & Bird to lobby against this. Their head lobbyist was Ex Senate majority leader Sen. Robert Dole. 
is not acceptable.  Each firm had its own agenda. Northpoint was also in a pitched lobbying battle with the massive lobbying power of the DBS companies. nadav 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am familiar with the facts (though the scienceblog link didn't work in my browser and, if it's a blog, is not OK. The relevant material should probably be in the Post article in any case).  The problem is the presentation. (WP:NPOV is relevant here) It is already stated in the article that Northpoint invested a lot in lobbying, "force the FCC chairman's hand" is loaded language, and the comparison to MDS's angelic behavior is not of much relevance to a section dealing with Northpoint's dealings with the FCC. As the DevX and WSJ articles indicate, a sympathetic reading of the affair was that Northpoint was just trying to level the playing field with the DBS companies. An opposing view would be that Northpoint was just trying to get something for nothing.  We have to steer between these two viewpoints, and I think text you inserted paints the situation in the latter way. nadav 22:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral language 

message: There should probably be more content about the DBS companies' angle, lobbying efforts, and court cases. nadav 23:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DBS companies 

message: *Disagree MDS AMERICA EMPLOYEE It is obvious from FCC that MDS Operations and MDS America control roughly one third of the MVDDS spectrum in the United States. That alone makes them notable and more notable than an obscure French company. There was considerable debate in the 98-206 docket  as to whether MDS Operations would be held to Common Carrier Standards. 
Here are references to MDSA outside of this dispute:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=7947
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BMD/is_81_8/ai_85180112
76.109.17.236 21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Actually, it's not essential to have a logged-in name, but anyone who has an affiliation, if he declares it, it would tend to deflect any concerns about conflict of interest. You don't have to reveal your real-life identify, just whether you have an affiliation with one of the interested parties. We will carefully listen to your arguments and suggestions in any case. If you, in addition, have a logged-in name, that would help us in communicating with you, because it is often felt it is not worthwhile to leave User_talk messages for IPs, because they won't check them.  EdJohnston 01:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Against

message: I've just received a request from User:nadav1 to close this straw poll. No admin has the right to close a poll as a poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it. The only exception is when an admin sees a consensus has been reached- which not the case here.
That said, personally speaking, the merge option sounds appropriate as both articles' content overlap (see Merging). Another important thing, is that due to my experience as a wikipedian, i personally see more valid arguments being said by the merge voters than by the other side. However, admins can only be decisive in a deletion process and never in a poll straw where no consensus has been reached. Polls are not binding and no policy governs them. I'd therefore suggest one of the following available options:
#The WP:AfD can be the solution. According to the arguments given an admin can either decide to delete an article, keep it (w/ an open possibility of a merge but you'll come back here again to discuss it), or merge it. This is a risky process for both parties but it is up to you to decide.
#Lengthen the time of this poll straw until a consensus be reached. 
#Keep stuff as it is.
#For MDS International, if someone is not happy they can simply re-list it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Poor Wikipedia Admin's! after removing MDSinternational and changing by  MVDDS Dispute, you build clear and reliable info and sources but again you start  another  but still the  same battle against the same guys: Machrino alias Mr Kirpatrick the CEO of MDSAMERICA (see Whois )
Or from Kirpatrick from home In Palm City see the IP adress location:
IP address & IP location (76.109.17.236):
 
IP address info: 
IP address:  76.109.17.236 (copy) 
IP country:  United States  
IP Address state:   
IP Address city: Palm City 
IP latitude: 27.118799 
IP longitude: -80.366600 
ISP:  Comcast Cable 
Organization: Comcast Cable 
You never can obtain neutrality and you never can have the right with no lies or truncated informations with this peoples.~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.206.63.250 (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that is asked is for people to state if they have an outside interest in the matter. As Ed said above, we don't need to know names and I ask Mr Kirpatrick [meant Mr. DuCasse. sorry](if it is indeed him) not to start snooping into people's IP addresses for no reason. nadav 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still the same game

message: I have reverted the above comments after they were altered by [83.206.63.250] 76.109.17.236 21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing talk Page 

message: *When was MDS America founded?
:2001, I think.
::Jan 4 200
*In what state was it incorporated?
:I think somewhere in the midwest; I'll investigate.
:: incorporated in Michigan
*Is it publicly traded? (I assume not)
:No, it's entirely privately owned. The Kuwaiti holding company that, I believe, is the primary owner is also privately held.
::All is correct
*Does it need to file any routine reports, that are publicly viewable, with either the US government or a state government?  If so, is there a URL available?
::We file with FCC on many many mattes. 
*Is there an FCC file on MDS America that we can look at?
::Tons just search on MDS America
*Is anything reported about its annual revenue or number of employees?
:Nothing is published. The IRS knows, of course.
::Just with the IRS. 
*Does it still have any ownership ties with MDS International? (owners of MDSA that own part of MDSI or vice versa).
:Sheikh Ali does not own any portion of MDS International. Jean Claude does not own any portion of MDS America. I believe that Fabrice may have a non-controlling interest in MDS International.
::All cross ownership was resolved with the agreements. MDSI is owned by Jean-Claude Ducasse and his four children, However they are all being sued by MDSI. MDSI has lost every French suit the have brought up to this time. 
Thanks, EdJohnston 21:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in the answers I'm aware of; I'll check with the COO tomorrow for the rest. Bhimaji 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Search on FCC site sorted by date I'm unable to open the doc files. Please help with digging.  nadav 22:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to convert some of those to PDFs if you wish, when I'm in the office and have MS Word handy. Bhimaji 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information wanted about MDS America 

message: Hello all, I'm back from my short wikibreak.  I'd like to ask someone that's familiar with this stuff to close the merge discussion per WP:MERGE#Closing/archive a proposed merger. Can we ask any of the admins that have been following some of this to do it? nadav 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comment at the bottom of the poll. Cheers. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing merge discussion 

message: Is it possible we could try to find a compromise among ourselves? Given the long history among a number of different articles, as well as confusing IP addresses and foreign language text, I think that we'd all likely be happier if we could work out an appropriate compromise rather than asking strangers to come in, understand everything, and then decide.
I'm sure that the MDSA marketing guys would love it if the MDSA article said we were perfect and the best in the world, etc. etc. Obviously, Wikipedia isn't an appropriate forum for such claims.
Personally, I would just like to have an article that references the fact that we do exist as a company, and tells people which Wikipedia articles they can go to for more information. I would actually prefer that it not contain PR-speak, since I think that the NPOV descriptions of the legal and regulatory foo speak for themselves and make us look appropriately good in an honest and objective way.
When dealing with articles about, say, WW-II battles, I think it's reasonable to choose top-level articles based purely on information content. However, in the case of people and organizations, I think that a combination of information and notability should be used. The battle of Midway is nothing but an event in a larger series of events that are fuzzily defined in terms of starting and ending. Organizations and people have clearly defined existence, and have some biographical information that is independent of their actions. When I read about something notable that somebody did, I want to know what else they did. If the person or organization's top-level entry redirects only into an article about one thing they did, I can't tell if that's all they've done or if nobody's gotten around to writing about what else they've done.
More concretely, I think that redirecting the MDSA article into MVDDS dispute will give people the wrong impression, and make them think that we probably don't exist anymore. Few people are likely to follow through to the MVDDS article and figure out that MDS also owns significant spectrum.
Getting directly to the question: Are there changes that could be made to the MDS America article that would make those in favor of merging amenable to keeping it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhimaji (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could somebody get started on the Notes to MDS America? Some of the links don't work. The federal court link is not to the actual court case. The definition of MVDDS is not found. There is a lot of room for improvement in the details. The South Coast Television link is just to their web site, and says nothing about the project that MDSA built. Proper citation templates could be used (per WP:CITE). If proponents of keeping the article would work to make it better, it would help persuade me that it should be kept.  I would also like to see mention of the *other* companies that currently make MVDDS equipment, so we get some idea of who is the competition. EdJohnston 17:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding a compromise?