Talk:Carl Freer

message: According to this article, Mr Freer's promised donation of 7 million kroner to Nordens Ark was lost in the collapse of Gizmondo. He did later make a smaller donation, but it does not seem enough to be notable, so I am removing the mention of Nordens Ark from this bio. Now that Mrblowfeldt has removed all the information surrounding Mr Freer's alleged criminal past and his links with known criminal Stefan Eriksson, there doesn't appear to be much left. --Fugu Alienking 01:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I have no opinion on this person. All I'm saying is, if someone asks for a citation, and you can provide one, then do so. Read WP:CITE to learn how to add citations to articles. Do you understand what I am asking for now? If not, feel free to ask for help, either here or on my talk page. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 01:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Rather than removing poorly worded sentences and their accompanying references, please try to improve them. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition to the improvements you describe above, you also removed a large amount of referenced material about circumstances surrounding Freer's resignation from Gizmondo. Perhaps this was what you mean by removing all references to Stefan Eriksson, but most of the material related to Freer himself, and the brief mention of Eriksson is appropriate given the business relationship and Eriksson's involvement in the circumstances that led to both mens' resignations. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. If people have a reasonable link between them, then there is no reason why they should not be mentioned. So while it would be silly to have extended mention of, say, David Blaine in the article on Tony Blair, there is no reason why the latter article could not go into detail on his relationship with Gordon Brown. Likewise, this article can mention Eriksson, as it appears to be related. Dreaded Walrus  t c 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You clearly have an interest here in keeping Eriksson's relationship with Freer hidden from public view. The noteworthiness of the relationship is well documented in the extensive references which you keep removing. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have as much interest as you apparently have in trying to tie the 2 together.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaker1 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it is what is reported in the reference given, but I'll revert it to the previous wording if you like.  --Fugu Alienking (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I am suspicious regarding Freer, as most people would be having read the background reports about his past activities. Two independent investigative journalists working for respected publications have come to the conclusion that the claim was false. The current public records show that he certainly is not a trustee now, and the only evidence you have are some PDF files posted on google pages, which could have been constructed by anyone. I don't think this can be presented as fact, but I think it is appropriate to include it if the references to the journalists' counterclaims are left in. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well thats your issue to work out. Its not appropriate to include the journalist in the section. Neither offered any solid proof simply conjecture as to his "non-involvement" I do however believe it is fair to say he is not currently involved (provided by your link). Additionally, I have removed the reference to the lawsuit in Wisconsin. first of all, who is to know what Carl Freer that is. Do you have first hand knowledge?? I find it interesting that you included an amount in the suit. I could not find the amount from the link you posted. You must have inside information on Mr Freers' or Mr Mohammeds affairs to be privy to such information. The suit is immaterial to this entry. This is a bio about Mr Freer not a "news" article on him. Are you going to begin to pass judgement on Mr Freer or perhaps you already have? Or are you working for Mr Mohammed??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaker1 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is not appropriate to include the results of investigations by two independent journalists from respected publications, then nor is it appropriate to include self-hosted PDF files. Either both sides of this need to be presented, or neither. Neutrality is not negotiable here. The other option would be to get Kings Medical Research Trust to make a public statement, which would end the dispute. Presumably if Freer was once a trustee there, they would agree to clear his name? --Fugu Alienking (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: :Image:Carl Freer.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Carl Freer.jpg

message: The facts about Mr. Freer and Gizmondo are true and indisputable. It is not slander, because slander requires a statements to be untrue. Mr. Freer even admits himself in the realtid.se interview that he has been convicted twice, once in Sweden and once in Germany. The fact that Gizmondo lost $382.5 million is relevant, even though Mr. Freer was not convicted of any crime.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novelist (talk • contribs) 05:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slander 

message: Where is the proof Alienking.com is tied to Carl Freer??? This should be removed immediately.. 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  alienking 

message: I removed this section, because the reference (Xero Mobile's corporate site) does not support a connection, and after checking for better references, I found only rumours and a denial by Freer himself of any involvement. If reference to Xero is added back in, the references should be to a news article or other reference that supports his involvement, and if the reference is not definitive, the uncertainty of this fact should be noted. Also, the catogorization under company names makes this bio look like a resume, more so when the blowfish works section consisted of a single sentence. In my opinion, Carl Freer is noteworthy only for the rise and fall of Gizmondo, anything else belongs under the Other Facts section, but that of course is open to debate here. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the section on Xero Mobile, not because I don't like what it says, but because the reference given to support Freer's involvement states only that there are rumors about him being involved in fundraising, but Freer himself denies any involvement with the company. The reference clearly does not support the inclusion of this section. If you have other references, then why don't you use them instead??! The other material was removed because it related to Gizmondo, not Freer. I see you have reworded them now to link them in to Freer, which is good. There is another point which you keep changing back, which is the word "claims" in reference to Freer's claim to have been exhonorated from any wrongdoing in the downfall of Gizmondo. The reference is to an interview with Freer, and there do not appear to be any other references to support this, therefore the word claims is appropriate and necessary here. It appears out of context now anyway, since you have removed all the facts about suspect business dealings and nepotism that were previously documented there, so I am inclined to remove the claim entirely. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xero Mobile 

message: As the only reference to his exhonoration is an interview with Freer himself, please refrain from removing the wording "Freer claims" from this claim. If you know of a published reference that is not from Freer himself, then please provide it when removing the word "claims". --Fugu Alienking (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exhonoration 

message: Warning to fellow editors: A number of dubious claims regarding Freer's history have appeared in Tiger Telematics SEC filings and in newspaper and magazine articles about Carl Freer in the past. Many of them (both positive and negative) have made it into this article where they were subsequently disputed and removed. Please take extra care when checking references, and if there are conflicting reports where one cannot be judged as more authoritative than the other, it is probably best left out of this article. I have just removed the claim about Freer winning Swedish Entrepreneur of the Year in 1997, which originated in a Moneyweek article about him. The 1997 Swedish winner of the well known award is listed on Ernst and Young's website as Claes-Göran Österlund of Hotell Ekoxen.
--Fugu Alienking (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claims 

message: I've posted questions about the "legal problems" section on the BLP noticeboard here.  It's my understanding that if statements are well-sourced then they are not BLP violations, but lets let the experts give their feedback.  IMO, the section does not violate BLP as no sources have been provided to say that the conviction and fine have been rescinded and the sources are excellent. Renee (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I too welcome the widest possible input on this issue. I'll leave a message on the noticeboard referring specifically to the talk page section above this one, so that people responding can get further information. Dreaded Walrus  t c 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard

message: With regards to Media Power, Mikael Ljungman, and Carl Freer, please note that User:Riverside blue, User:Truthmaker1, and User:Needlepinch appear to be either the same editor, or working in concert. Additionally, all three are single-purpose accounts as they have only contributed to these articles. --Ckatzchatspy 17:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential sockpuppets

message: The websites for several of Freer's various enterprises have been offline for the past few days, for example Media Power and Blowfishworks. Do we know the reason? Have these enterprises met the fate of Gizmondo Europe? Huon (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business problems? 

message: There's currently a slow-moving revert war going on involving the interpretation of a recent court ruling regarding Freer (unfortunately written in legalese) and whether Freer's past convictions for petty fraud, which were mentioned to The Times and the LA Times, should be mentioned in the article. Huon (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The differences between the preferred versions can be seen in this diff. Huon (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Article said "The company went bankrupt in February 2006". That statement is wrong as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolvency_Act_1986. As you can see, only individuals go Bankrupt under The Insolvency Act 1986. Companies go into Liquidation in the UK, and Gizmondo Europe Ltd was a UK Incorporation. Setomorp (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is true, I don't see any logic behind your removal of all the Gizmondo references from this page.  Freer was Managing Director of Gizmondo (later renamed to Gizmondo Europe when the head office shifted to LA, along with all the company assets, shortly before liquidation) as well as Chairman of the board of its parent company Tiger Telematics.  Since Gizmondo was by far the more noteworthy of the two companies, it does not make sense to remove references to it in favour of the lesser known parent company. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liquidation not Bankruptcy 

message: Please exercise caution when linking the actions of individuals to negative business performance. If you are going to name individuals as having responsibility for the loss of of substantial amounts of money, and the demise of a company, then your sources need to be impeccable. Naming some individuals, and not others as responsible for negative performance does not seem correct to me. IMHO all or none and be certain that there is a link between the individual and the outcome before your imply one. I don't know anything about the subject of the article however it appears to me that some POV has entered the article. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to a recent edit, or something old? Here's the net effect of all of the edits this month, and none of them add to that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to the article as it reads now. The article should accurately summarise what is written on the subject by reliable sources. I am not saying that the article is in breach of WP:BLP but to be cautious. Furthermore, there have been a number of edits and reverts of late which might indicate an absence of consensus among editors. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution [[WP:BLP]] 

message: I've transferred the below discussion here from my talk page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made what I think is a compromise. Let me know what you think. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

text: If they weren't the directors, then give the names of who the directors were, and cite a source confirming it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

text: I've discovered the source of the confusion. The passage is talking about the company before Freer resigned, so it correctly says "Under Freer and Eriksson." Originally, sentences were in the wrong order and it looked like it took place after Freer's resignation. It should be clearer now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

text: In an article about Gizmondo, you'd be right that "the Directors" would be more appropriate. The article is about Freer, though, so specifically mentioning him and a person who reported directly to him, rather than generically mentioning the directors, is correct. I'm okay with talking about pounds instead of dollars, but you'd need to convert all the values and make sure they're sourced. Also, "hundreds of millions of dollars" refers to the entire time, not just 2004. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with that, but you should convert all of the usages to be pounds if you want to do that, because it's worse for an article to be inconsistent than it is for it to use the "wrong" currency consistently. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Find a reliable source that says what the amounts were in pounds, and use the numbers it gives. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning Freer as a director, liquidation vs. bankruptcy, amount of money lost 

message: Come back from Christmas break and see that 2 of the 3 articles I nominated for deletion have been deleted. The 3rd that was not deleted, this article, was recommended for deletion and although there were not any policy reasons left by those voting to keep the article, it appears to have been kept. I also see that the discussion was closed early which is puzzling. Anyways, I did not realize this page was so contentious until reading the talk history here. Doesn’t appear that anyone wants to do anything to improve the biography, so I am taking the liberty to clean this up. This article is a major BLP violation as it contains original research and seems to slant everything negative towards this guy which is not neutral. There is also another article related to a member of the former company Stefan Eriksson which will need cleaned up as well. The sources in this article are poor at best with the exception of the LA Time and The Sunday Times. It talks about a failed gaming device and how it was the worse seller of all time, yet there is an article for the game where this information she be listed. I would advise anyone coming to edit this article take a look at WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.  --JakenBox (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And it seems like edits were reversed, citing that the information in the article is “approved.” Not sure who approved them. Regardless,  the  content was reverted back so that it is less of the BLP violation that it is and reported to the BLP noticeboard. Hope this will help get this article corrected as well as the one for Eriksson, Tiger Telematics, and Gizmondo. --JakenBox (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The keep justification is publicly available here for anyone to read: , as is the discussion where the specific policy reasons, as you put it, were addressed. I would urge you not to strip referenced content from this article during your attempts to improve it. As the keep decision was in part due to the improvement of the article with secondary sources, those improvements will likely be kept. Universaladdress (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Seems this issue has been solved through confirmed versions in a way with which I am absolutely satisfied and conforms exactly to the rationale behind the two "keep" decisions I mentioned. Good deal. Universaladdress (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, and not to beat the horse even more, but the “keep” discussions were as follows: The first was A NO CONSENSUS. This means that it was NOT a keep, it was closed without a consensus being reached. Big difference. The second one was kept with only 1 vote providing rationale. Your “vote” did not really state a reason other than it meets WP:CRIME. Unfortunately, I still do not think it does. So, not sure how “the issue has been resolved.”--JakenBox (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we close this ancient dispute? The editor who raised it seems to have vanished from Wikipedia completely, immediately after his last failed attempt to get this page deleted. No one else has raised any objection of which I am aware. Universaladdress (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Not exactly. Can you point out the policy that states that a dispute is closed in favor of an editor if the other editor makes no more changes for 6 months? Searched everywhere but could not find it. I am actually waiting for 6 months to send the page back to AfD. I requested it be sent back  earlier, but was advised by an admin to wait which I agreed  as I did not want to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. You know as well as I do that this is an attack page, set up  to make Mr. Free and Mr. Erickson look like criminals. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a place for you to air your disapproval of these  guys or their failed company. --JakenBox (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD isn't so that you can re-nominate every 6 months until you get your way. By the way, I support all of Universaladdress's recent changes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been whitewashed quite a bit over the years. Where did the mention of Freer's "co-pilot" Mikael Ljungman go? If anything, it's a POV piece in Freer's favor, not something defaming him.  should not be added without pointing out specific concerns, which JakenBox has not done. It should be removed. Huon (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

text: I expect a good-faith effort to conclude this discussion within the coming weeks. Hit-and-run is not a tactic that Wikipedia's discussion guidelines are designed to reward. If objections remain, raise them. If not, let's close this discussion. Universaladdress (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Two weeks have now passed with no objections raised beyond those already addressed through multiple avenues at this point. Closing this discussion and removing the template. Further good faith efforts to discuss must take this discussion into account; re-adding the template will require raising new and specific objections on the talk page first. Universaladdress (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP violation and neutral point of view 

message: There appears to be one editor, UA, that came back after I spent considerable time doing a fix up job here, as I have elsewhere. I'm starting this section as a forum for others to specifically communicate what should be on this page.DavidWestT (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia. This is not a place for forums, and it is not a place to try to exert Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting new section as a forum

message: Some of the information that has been entered into the Legal issues section seems to be from interim decisions in an ongoing case, which are covered by the following disclaimer in the court records: California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115..  There are more recent decisions in the same case which partially contradict what is currently stated in this section, but I do not think it is appropriate to make statements on Wikipedia while the case is ongoing, so have been removing the contradicted statements and replacing them with a statement that the case was filed and is ongoing.  However, I do not wish to get into an edit war, and request a third party to decide what is an appropriate course of action here, as DavidWestT seems determined to keep the record reading a specific way. Fugu Alienking 02:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are no reliable secondary sources for the actual outcome of this case, but from a search of the primary sources, I see it ended in an undisclosed settlement, and that Warnock and Davies are now involved in the management of Aluminaid, while Carl Freer seems to be moving on to other things.  The case seems to be notable only for the appeals court decision regarding the limitation of litigation privilege in protecting a law firm from defamation suits under SLAPP legislation.  However the notability of this case law does not seem to be particularly related to Carl Freer, and the proportion of this article given to discussing this case seems WP:UNDUE compared to the other Legal Issues that Freer has been involved in which have been covered extensively in mainstream press rather than just in law journals.  I would propose finding a relevant legal topic to move the case details into (if the decision is notable enough to be kept on Wikipedia at all) and save the Legal Issues section for what has been covered in mainstream press.  I have made a few changes to the text already to fix some WP:SYNTH and WP:POV issues with the text that was there  —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 15:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RICO case and subsequent malicious prosecution suit 

message: As Freer has developed a history of exaggerated claims, and money pledged and widely advertised, but never followed through (see Gizmondo's lawsuits with MTV, Jordan racing team and Ogilvy and claims related to Norden's Ark and King's Medical Trust for earlier examples), I think it is important to balance this press release about a donation to Georgia Tech over a 5 year period with the information that the company ceased to exist long before that period was over, and that Georgia Tech no longer lists any information about links to Media Power on their website. I previously added the following passage, but it was quickly reverted by the current defender of Freer's online reputation.
:Media Power disappeared without trace shortly after this press release and the donation is no longer referenced on Georgia Tech's website, so it is not clear how much, if any, of this pledged funding was provided.
As there appears to be controversy over this paragraph, I'd like to get some comments here on how it can be improved before re-adding it.
—Fugu Alienking (contribs) 16:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion would be not to re-add that statement (which has WP:SYN issues and whose source does not discuss the donation), but to remove the claim based on a press release without independent verification. Huon (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Georgia Tech donation 

message: I hope this isn't taken as unnecessarily jovial, because I don't mean it that way, but I don't want to step on a landmine here. Can someone give me a short, neutral summary of why this page has been sent up for deletion twice and sent back? ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The short answerr is: Because Freer's notability is not clear-cut either way. He's primarily known for his connection to the failed Gizmondo handheld device and the company behind it that went bankrupt amid allegations of lavish salaries for the executives, including Freer and his associates such as Stefan Eriksson who happened to have a criminal past. The curret "legal issues" section, particularly the coverage of the libel case, should probably be shortened per WP:WEIGHT. That's about the intricacies of US libel law, not about Carl Freer. Huon (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy summary?

message: Let's discuss edits from above version (which is current) so that edit war is stopped right where we are? Please answer above questions. --Pichku (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please explain why you found it necessary to twice revert the change on 08:25, 10 August 2017 by Jon Kolbert (updated reference link from using http to https) —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 14:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please explain why you find it necessary to mention Family Tree Foundation in this article, having added it back in at least 3 times, yet not once providing a reliable source for the claim, even after it has been so obviously disputed.   The Google Search mentioned above is not a reliable source, but also turns up a "Family Tree Foundation" which is a legal entity in Louisville Kentucky, and which Carl Freer does not appear to play a notable role in.  This appears to be similar to the Kings Medical Trust and VXtreme claims mentioned in some of the reliable sources of this article, which I would recommend you study.  —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 14:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  Please explain why you do not feel that the well sourced content that you removed in your edit of 20:50, 8 July 2017 is WP:DUE.  This was one of the most well referenced sections of the article, and I would think that coverage in Wired Magazine, LA Times, The Times, and Danish National Television when so much else in this article is based on press releases, tabloid journalism and hearsay makes this section very much WP:DUE. —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 14:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  The sources for your last edit appear to be press releases (one in a publication which Carl Freer writes for, and the article referenced seems to be the only one not ascribed to a named author, so it may in fact be self-published).  The language used seems to be implying that IBM is actively working with Carl Freer, but unless there is a reliable source stating this, then I think it is best to avoid such an implication.  I hope you can accept the edit that I made to that language. —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 14:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  I find it curious that you keep adding in the language " and author of several patents." when none of the sources mention that.  Would you care to explain where you are getting this information from, as you have declared that you have no interest in the article's subject? —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 14:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:DUE means that the article should give weight proportional to coverage in reliable secondary sources of each subtopic covered.  I am not sure what meaning you have in mind, as you have not highlighted specifically what about the well sourced content that you blanked was undue.  It would help considerably if you refrained from hard reverts through several versions of the article back to your preferred version, and instead put some effort into singling out just the content that you have an issue with and improve it to a point where we can come to a consensus, and leaving the other valuable contributions to the article intact.  We shouldn't need to discuss every single change proposed here, if all editors act in good faith and assume that of others the natural way is to reach an editing consensus. —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 14:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Only mention of trivia like his dates, orgs he founded are WP:DUE in biography about him as entrepreneur. Simple. I agree with not reverting you should too and stop reverting. Discuss the last version. I agree with getting consensus and both of us improving it together. It will mean that we hold on to version we are discussing in this section that is stop editwar where we stand. Not restore any of our preference version. Just stop editing and discuss at current version. B - u - t, consensus does mean that every change is discussed until dispute is over. Dont just assume I agree, good faith is discussion. --Pichku (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

text:  The purpose of editing articles Wikipedia is not to revert to previous versions. The purpose is to improve on articles collaboratively.  Constant reversion of well sourced material such as you have been doing could be interpreted by those less charitable as vandalism.  I have patiently explained every one of my edits in the change comments.  As you are new here, please read the previous discussions above regarding WP:BLP and other issues that have arisen in the past.  WP:BLP does not mean that we must only put positive things about the subject into the article. It means that what we do put must be well supported by reliable sources.  You are removing content which is supported by in depth articles in LA Times, Sunday Times, Wired, Moneyweek and other reputable publications. Meanwhile the information you want to add to the article in its place is supported only by blogs, press releases and similar self published websites.  The Singapore Business Review link you posted quite clearly says at the bottom that they accept paid placements, and other articles can be found that are written by Carl Freer. The other source appears to be a similar type of publication.  While I don't have a problem using that as a source for trivia such as Carl Freer working on a new company called Watstock, I think that to make the claim that IBM is working with him on that, we would need a more reliable secondary source with some journalistic fact checking behind it, or a press release that could be verified as coming from IBM themselves.  Carl Freer's past record regarding VXtreme, Kings Medical Trust, Swedish Entrepreneur of the Year, Forbes List and others places the reputation of Wikipedia at great risk if we accept his word on things like this.  The same goes for Family Tree Foundation and the alleged patents.  —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You know admins are watching this page so now you should remain civil and stop making accusations when I am not making any accusations? None of my revert is vandalism, it is dispute and you are calling it vandalism. Stop this first as this is offensive and rude. If your explanations are not agreed with, it does not mean that you are free to revert. So let us just continue the discussion in a mannered way. I have read WP:BLP many times over now. I dont care if info is positive or negative, I dont mind if there is negative info. Article already has negative info, legal issues section and what not. My concern with this article started due to BLP issues. It does mean that you have to balance positive and negative info. Info added is backed up with sources. But you are not even discussing sources and info like I did. Raise your concerns here, so that I can give my argument. About watstock, I think two sources I provided are written not by Carl Freer and are reliable enough. For such a simple fact, that is not positive information or negative information just trivia, why do you disagree? Can you explain your concern? I think reputation of wikipedia will be better served if you follow its policies than just worry about it. Why are you asking for a press release from IBM if you have just disagreed with using PRs just like I have disagreed with using them? The source already used is a secondary source not related to IBM or Carl Freer. That is more neutral to use. So what about legal issues heading that you are changing? My understanding is that these are trivia too and trivial coverage that do not relate to his notability as entrepreneur. Negative things are welcome but explain. --Pichku (talk) 07:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Reading your new comment and I will reply in some time but why did you revert again after we decided to discuss here instead of editwar? I am restoring the version dated in title of this section so we discuss edits before updates. I will take care not to undo https edit of Jon. --Pichku (talk) 07:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Please forgive me for the slow replies as volunteer work like editing wikipedia is new to me and I have less time in a day but I will reply to your questions as I log in. If you can mutually agree to discuss edits, it will be better and we can move on to editing other wikipedia articles sooner. --Pichku (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your approach of revert first, read the talk page later does not seem constructive.  You accuse me of reverting and edit warring, yet all I did there was add "citation needed" tags to the two statements you have added that are not supported by the references.  You also reverted another edit I made to improve the WP:NPOV of some other text that was not a reversion of at all but a fresh edit on text which until now you have shown no interest it.  Please discuss in good faith. —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 13:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  As Pichku seems no longer interested in participating in this conversation, I will be  bold and reinstate the  neutral POV improvements I made in my previous edit. —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 04:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was waiting for your reply on my questions. I did not notice that you sneaked out Family Tree Foundation again. Why are you removing well sourced content? I have showed you sources for it. Any reason? Do not revert while our discussion is on going. As we started in good faith, I have restored the version we are discussing in this section. I suggest that you bullet list your wanted edits here on talk page so that we can debate them. On other hand, IBM Watson is said to have collaborated for watstock. Why do you change this? Do you have a source that they only used APIs and not collaborated which counters my source or is this your WP:SYNTH and WP:OR? This is quote from the source an application developed in collaboration with IBM Watson. --Pichku (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text: You are WP:BOLD but you dont follow WP:BRD. So you are even violating WP:BOLD by reverting when your bold edit is undone. --Pichku (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Fresh discussion on edits after 11:17, 23 August 2017‎

message: wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
; Viewpoint by (Fugu Alienking): A Wikipedia article should contain only well referenced factual content.  The majority of mainstream media coverage of this article's subject was published around the 2005-2006 timeframe, and covered the collapse of Gizmondo, and the directors' colorful pasts.  There have been some company press releases in business focussed publications since, and these may also warrant a mention, but according to WP:DUE, these should not have more coverage than the information from mainstream press articles.  Other editors (the names periodically change, but the pattern of editing behaviour is the same - there is discussion above when past incidents have occurred) seem to be seeking to turn this article into a resume for the subject, and persistently add unverifiable information as well as removing the well sourced information from LA Times, Wired, Moneyweek and other reputable press coverage. As time has passed, interest in the topic has waned, and I feel that the recent behaviour by the most recent "positive POV" editor has crossed a line in controlling the article content by edit warring and insistance on discussion by others, while avoiding the discussion themselves. —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 09:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: Thanks. I have moved the mention of patents down in the body, I think that is fair. Criteria for mention of trivia is not as high as getting a new article and I think it is verifiable that he is an author of several patents, which makes it ok to add. But to compromise, I have moved it from intro to body. Further agreeing to compromise, I have removed Family Tree Foundation. These things are not a big deal as we are all here to improve this article. I have added wiki links to machine learning and AI. --Pichku (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your constructive approach.  I would like to discuss the change you made on 6 July. Your comment was "such trivia is not WP:DUE in this BLP", but this trivia was the most well referenced paragraph in the entire article, with mentions in LA Times, Wired, The Sunday Times, and a Danish article about IT Factory.  Such mainstream press coverage makes it DUE to mention in Wikipedia, as mentioned in the previous Wider discussion consensus above. So I would like for this text to be restored also. —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 15:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I dont think downplaying reliable sources simply because the author is a staff reporter is legit. This infact gives the article even more credibility of the publisher that the publisher's staff reporter was the author of the article. When an article is published by a said publisher, we should see the credibility of the source. Staff reporter writing an article means that the article has gone through even more checks by the publisher and their editorial team. Guest authors who are named are not judged by their personal credibility only as well. The editorial of the publisher is what brings credibility to references. So I request that you do not down play sources to win disputes. Also noting that my edits are not under review here, we have a content dispute when we finally decided to work on the current version. So let us move this point forward. One more thing, you seem to be against adding trivia like The Freer Family Tree Foundation but on other hand you want to add negative but not impartial info on a BLP. This is what lead me to work on this article in the first place. After reading the WP:BLP policies, I have determined that wikipedia articles should not be tilting towards negativity for biographies of living persons. In this case context matters because the event you are asking to add is of zero significance to the person's biography and years of life time in which many things are notable. Focusing on this would be biased.  Back to the staff reporter issue, it is clear that Freer does not work as a reporter on the said source or they would have named him as the author, not called him as the "staff reporter". So your logic here is incorrect too. If we are to move forward and form a consensus mutually, you will have to learn to let go and drop the stick after that horse is dead. I have removed FTF mention and the source clearly shows it was "in collaboration with IBM". Unless you have a source saying it was not in collaboration with IBM, you are just giving your personal commentary which can not be a part of wikipedia. So how about consider the above compromise as decided? Pichku (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you call downplaying, I call a healthy dose of scepticism in light of Carl Freer's past record of making dubious claims in times of fundraising for his next venture (see other discussion above about VXtreme, King's Medical Trust and others, which has now been expunged from the article despite multiple reliable sources highlighting the falseness of these claims). The "Staff Writer" attribution could just as easily be hiding a conflict of interest given that Carl Freer is known to write for the same publication.  I am not saying to remove the text completely, only to change one word to err on the side of caution and follow what the other available source is saying rather than trusting this source which has had questions raised as to its reliability.  The way you take my suggestions as a personal attack does not fit with your previous declaration that you have no conflict of interest in this article. —Fugu Alienking (contribs) 14:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been told before at WP:ANI that this is a content dispute and you will not get around it by accusing me falsely based on your previous life experiences or experiences on this wikipedia page. So how about we cut that chase. I am to erring on the side of caution because this is a BLP, but there is no conflict in sources. The third opinion too said the text was fine as it was so I believe your eyes alone are not the only credible eyes on this article and sources. I dont care what Carl Freer himself claims, wikipedia policies have no interest in that too unless it is significant to his biography overall, I am adding what sources have written in them and read by multiple editors. There's no conflict, its simple, because the other source is less explanatory but *not* negating! Pichku (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion discussion