Talk:CueCat

message: Any place you can get one free these days? Superweirdash
:Ha. No. Not for the last five years or so. You can get them from eBay for a few bucks, or some other places. If you have an actual use for them, I'd say it's well worth it; traditional barcode readers are still frightfully uncheap. I'm considering fetching one myself to catalog my books. (Oh, and you can sign your comments by writing ~~~~ after your comment. I've done it above for you.) grendel|khan June 29, 2005 20:34 (UTC)
::I got mine for free from a RadioShack in Alaska in 2001. They were handing them out, and I knew I didn't need it, but it looked cool :). -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 05:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting a CueCat 

message: Is there a particular reason that cleanup was requested? The article seems to flow pretty well for me; what's wrong with it? grendel|khan 03:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering that myself... Dpbsmith (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Made some link edits today chasing down citations needed and was not logged in.  Was me, found the legal documents where CueCat folks sent notice to hackers.  Updated the citations needed and chased down one link which was supposedly referring to cuecat but was not part of the article on bankruptcy by CBS Marketwatch . Sorry still learning how to do all this. SoftwareNerdTech (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup? 

message: Do pictures that I have taken of copyrighted devices count as my work? If I want to take a picture of  a :CueCat, do I have to tag it as , or can I tag it as ? -Mysekurity 23:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you make a picture of a car, does the pic belong to you, or to General Motors? There is already a plethora of pictures of eg. gaming consoles and other stuff as , so I don't see why  would be wrong choice here. On another note, do you plan to make a pic of its circuitboard and the sensing element too? --Shaddack 02:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and I don't see why not. I guess I'll first take a few pictures of the device itself, then of its parts (I have the PS/2 model) like the plug and others. I kind of want to keep my :CueCat just to laugh at it in a few more years. Maybe I could get another one for cheap, which I'd be willing to dissasemble, just this one has some small significance to me. I'll upload the pictures as soon as I can (and if I forget--not done in a week--feel free to spam my talk page). Thanks again, Mysekurity 03:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do. Cuecats go for under ten bucks each after shipping, and way less if those eBay people let you combine shipping. grendel|khan 05:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry it's taking me so long. I think I'm going to order one of these tonight, but will someone walk me through what to take a picture of? I'm not exactly sure what to do once I get it. -Mysekurity 20:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Is it possible to rename the article to something like  :CueCat or some lead Unicode character?  Similar to how C plus plus was done. 130.156.3.34 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's not possible, due to technical restrictions.  The article title must begin with a capitalized alphabet character or a numerical. Czj 00:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title 

message: If I'm not mistaken, CueCat was really DigitalConvergence's only claim to fame.  As such, and since there was no Wikipedia article for DC, I've redirected DigitalConvergence to CueCat, at least until (or if) someone decides to expand on the corp itself. --Czj 23:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was also another technology CRQ that they developed with a similar premise.  You'd hear a tone on TV that sounded like a knock and a musical note and it would somehow send you to a particular website.  I don't think that any major advertisers or programs ever employed this, but I'm not sure, nor do I know how it worked (e.g., how it got the TV signal into the software and how it got the URL.)128.195.20.127 23:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty crude, they made a cable with a phono stacking plug on one end and a stereo jack the other to plug into your soundcards line in. I got one with my (unfortunately broken) cuecat and i think i still have it somewhere. Plugwash 16:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NBC launched the CRQ television technology nationally on its Thursday Must See TV lineup during Friends, etc.  This technology was an audible barcode that was decoded by the sound card.  Quite ingenious.  Has anyone even attempted to contact the inventor mentioned within the story?
Hello, I have posetd a discussion topic for separating the Cue Cat record from the Digital Convergence record.  Can I get any and all input.  Thanks (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  DigitalConvergence 

message: The article says it's cat shaped, but many thought it looked like something else. // Liftarn
:It's obviously cat-shaped in the included picture.  For what else could one possibly mistake it?  --Lance E Sloan (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware of these other form factors, though they don't surprise me. If there is good documentation (text and/or photos), these other forms certainly should be added to the article.  Reify-tech (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shape 

message: I've proposed merging Digital Convergence Corporation into this article as it seems unlikely to pick up much more material on its own. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: The homepage link is broken. Might want to fix that. Xe7al (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link to Homepage 

message: Here are some important facts that should be added to the Cue cat history page: (more at end)
CueCat and DigitalConvergence, in 2001, won the Top Honors of The Laureate Medal within the Media, Arts and Entertainment category for the Smithsonian/ComputerWorld Honors Program.  The "Search for Heroes Program" award title was "Technology Most Likely To Change the World".  The award is an technology industry sponsored award and all awards are reviewed and given based on the review of the Top 100 Technology CEO's at the time the award is given.  The award established in 1989 was co-sponsored through 2001 by the Smithsonian Institution and was co-founded by ComputerWorld Magazine.  The Honors Winners Case Studies are preserved for case study in Archives Center at American History at the Smithsonian and become course work materials for 134 institutions which are actively engaged in the preservation, protection and dissemination of these materials and have been designated Members of the Computerworld Honors Global Archives and Academic Council.
The are the verifing links:
http://www.cwhonors.org/  (describes the awarding organization)
http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_4a.asp?search=&cat=Media&year=2001&Submit2=Search (this is the archive for the award)
http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_4a_detail.asp?id=4259 (this is the case study)
http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_3.asp (this is the archive and reviewing universities and the case study can be found in archives there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ComputerWorld_Smithsonian_Award  (the award on wiki and top 100 CEO's)
http://siris-archives.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?uri=full=3100001~!140524!0#focus  (Smithsonian flies)
http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_3.asp  (verification of 134 instutions and who they are)
Have some concerns of broken links within this record, unnecessary edits and and people undoing factual data.
Any issues with the facts and correctness of this addition to CueCat?
Plan to review here and then submit within a few days if there is no reasonable objection to these facts. (Proofplus (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cue Cat edits 

message: Would like to have a discussion here about the separating of the CueCat file from the DigitalConvergence file.  That would be DigitalConveregence in the use of NO SPACE between the two words.
DigitalConvergecem the Intellectual Property set, survived the closure of the CueCat version of the project.  I see here the two files have been combined.  Thus DigitalConvergence points to CueCat.  Althought the CueCat record is sparse and fairly inaccurate with broken links, the file of DigitalConvergence should be its own record set.
Up for discussion:
The Intellectual Property survived the DigitalConvergence close of operations.
DigitalConvergence won awards for it's IP and software - separate and apart from the DEVICE known as Cuecat.
CueCat was a device not a company
The DigitalConveregence company was an intellectual property set, a database set, and other incarnations of scanning technology, therefore would suggest a breaking apart of the record so they can be properly documents.
As a BUSINESS case study in over 130 Universities and Institutions of Higher Learning, this should be fact enough for the speparations.  See my previous links under cuecat discussion to avoid clutter her.
Please provide comments.  Thank you for your consdierations (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand you properly, you believe there should be a separate article on the company, DigitalConvergence. If I'm correct, please provide here some secondary sources indicating notability of the company.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you for the lift of AutoBlock  NEW - DIGITAL CONVERGENCE 

message: (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification to Commentors PREVIOUSLY (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) 

message: Good Morning all,
Still seeking suggestions on the links and facts provided to all here.  Notifed all who have edited cue cat records and seeking comments to the information I posted.  and, Admins and such, thank you for all the help, suggestions and pointers.  most kind.  (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 17:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still seeking comments on my suggestions 

message: To ALL in this discussion group.
The edits to the Cue cat record were posted for two weeks for comments.  Bbb23 and others were notified of the corrections to be made and left open for comments.  Repeatedly Bbb23 for some reason seems to act hostile to this record.  This has me wondering?  Does Bbb23 have some axe to grind?  His repeated deletions to this record are an insult to everyone trying to improve ANY wiki article.  Bbb23 what exactly are your issues?  All the links were there.  All the facts were there.  And you used some bogus claim of "can't find nomination"?  Does not an award being awarded, in fact by shear default show somewhere a nomination of some sort?  Plus, the link directly to the Codie Award -which clearly states the award given for Best Reference Tool, and you just deleted it???
http://www.siia.net/codies/2011/pw_2001.asp
In an enviroment where Wiki is seeking donations, you are doing harm to people by turning them off to wiki, thus why would they give money to have hostile acts by individual users like you?ProofPlus Professional Researcher 15:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bbb23 Harrassment and repeated UNDO of valid records 

message: Hello again to all,
This reminds me of my son's playgroup of 5 year olds.
They argue, but really have littler no reason to do so.  But I guess thats the wiki way.
Speaking of the wiki way.  My understanding was:
1.  Go to discussion group
2.  Post suggestions
3.  Review comments
4.  Agree
5.  Make revisions to the record
I did each of these, but Cullen/Bbb23 and whatever other name, made NO suggestions or comments.
Now I can see that Bbb23 thinks this record is his personal sandbox, but I did open this to suggestions and there was not a single challenge or comment.  So, I can only surmise, that there is some personal grind going on here.  But then again, I offered ALL MY toys to the group and said "look over my toys" and offer any suggestions.
Is this the wiki way?  I am surprised since on EVERY wiki page at the moment, there is a plea for donations.  How does one foster community and getting money for Wiki when there are SO many children playing in the sandbox, claiming "this is the wrong sand? OR " How do we really know this is sand, I did not see it dug up?"
To those.  Why don't you just edit with a sense of being a professional.  The Codie award link is there and valid.  So, make sure it is in the record.
Other than that.  I can clearly see the pattern, it is evident on all the edits to this record and others.  Two or more work together to undo valid work, and then the one posting it, which takes great pride in the work, undoes the undos, and then they get flagged.
Yes, boys, it is, by virtue of your time on here, YOUR sandbox, and your roommates, box mates and cube mates can try to force ones hand, but the pattern is very clear and it does damage the reputation of wiki when you engage in this behavior.
Thank you boys for remaining boys,  and thank you to the few gentlemen who have been such in this endeavor.  
As for me, will keep updating this record and won't give any money to wiki until boys become men. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 15:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki - Cue Cat and Funds and UNDO of proper research 

message: In my last edits to the record for Cue Cat,  Bbb23 (the master of all edits cue cat) has decided to leave off the following award for cuecat:
Best Reference Tool
:CRQ Technology, Digital: Convergence Corp. 
http://www.siia.net/codies/2011/pw_2001.asp (listing of award given)
http://www.siia.net/codies/2011/story.asp (history of award)
Please review.  SINCE this is a COMBINED RECORD of Cue Cat and Digital Convergence this award belongs here, Unless the record is split.
Please make comments, or hide until I make the updates in a week, and then come out of the woodwork and start setting the reputation of wiki further back.  
COMMENTS  ProofPlus Professional Researcher 15:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Codie award is a notable award, and :CRQ is a component of CueCat covered in this article. I've added a sentence to the article noting that it won the award. —C.Fred (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SUGGESTION for Edit to RECORD for Cue Cat 

message: When I first posted and read the record on this topic, everyone stated, POST FACTS that can be verified.  That is what I did.  Then it was undone.
Are there any professional, exaulted, profuse editors here following this record, that would care to update the cuecat record with the following fact and have clout enough to let facts reign and not have hard work and research undone?
In my last edits to the record for Cue Cat, Bbb23 (the master of all edits cue cat) has decided to leave off the following award for cuecat:
 
Best Reference Tool
 CRQ Technology, Digital: Convergence Corp. 
http://www.siia.net/codies/2011/pw_2001.asp (listing of award given)
 
http://www.siia.net/codies/2011/story.asp (history of award)
 
Please review. SINCE this is a COMBINED RECORD of Cue Cat and Digital Convergence this award belongs here, Unless the record is split.
 
Please make comments, or hide until I make the updates in a week, and then come out of the woodwork and start setting the reputation of wiki further back.
 
COMMENTS ProofPlus Professional Researcher 15:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  STYLE versus FACT 

message: See above sections.
The Codie award was not in your original edit I reverted. I have no problem with the award being in the article as inserted by User:C.Fred. You really need to get a grip, or you are going to be blocked as a disruptive editor who is not interested in editing constructively or discussing articles in a reasonable manner.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also encourage you, Proofplus, to back off from the confrontational tone and try to cooperate and collaborate with other editors.  I give you a 100% guarantee that a friendlier and more reasonable approach will result in far greater success for you as a Wikipedia editor, and a better quality article about the CueCat and also about any other notable topic of interest to you.  We are all volunteers here - treat us with respect and you will be treated with respect as well.  Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Proofplus 

message: Hello gentlemen, thank you ALL for your help.  In trying to improve this particular record there are some inaccurate items within the record.  Here is what they are itemized and I would like to correct them and add the references.  I am posting this to see if there are any issues with them.  Please message me and let me know.
1.  ON EXISTING ARTICLE:  "was developed in the late 1990s"  CORRECTION NEEDED:  the technology according to SEC files and audits show the creation dates if 1992 idea documentation, 1993 loop test, 1994 initial test, 1995 larger test, 1996 platofrom test and 1997 test launch.  Therfore the idea existed as a technology as early as 1993 in a working function.  This different than LATE 1990's
2.  ON EXISTING ARTICLE: "open a link to an Internet URL by scanning a barcode" CORRECTION NEEDED: the technology mapped a bar code of any of the 8 types available at the time to map to a remote server for resolution to a specific web address.  FACT: the bar code or swipe was not a link in any kind and did not have an embedded link.  There is a difference and this was stated in the SEC documents and IP searches.
3.  ON EXISTING ARTICLE: "100 patents developed by the company during its inception" CORRECTION NEEDED: searches show 116 US Patents and 97 Patents in over 170 countries and annexes of such.
4.  ON EXISTING RECORD: "been licensed to consumer and commercial equipment manufacturers, services and enterprises.[citation needed" CORRECTIONS NEEDED.  Federal USPTO records show the patents of Digital Convergece were acquired by RPX Corp.  ON RPX Corp it shows the patents have been licensed to 103 companies, with an average $6.6 million dollar a year license, and the list of the company include Microsoft, Ebay, and huge tech companies now in this space.  Important point I think
5.  ON EXISTING ARTICLE: "computers using the PS/2 keyboard port and later and less commonly, USB" CORRECTION NEEDED:  seems the S1 and RadioShack announcements show 1 million PS/2 and 2 million USB were manufactured, thus this fact in the record is REVERSED.  Needs correction to be factual.
6.  ON EXISTING ARTICLE: "also bulk mailed (unsolicited) to certain mailing lists, such"  CORRECTION NEEDED:  articles show the device was not mailed by Digital but was subscription gifts from publishers to subscribers.  This is a huge factual difference in the record
7.  ON EXISTING ARTICLE:   "roughly a year, starting in October 2000, The Dallas Morning News" CORRECTION NEEDED:  Belos shows first paper made interactive with the technology was December 1999.  Time stated is incorrect
8.  ON EXISTING ARTICLE TWO TIMES BODY AND SIDEBAR:  "200 employees as of 2000"  CORRECTION NEEDED:  SEC, and Bankruptcy records show 1250 employees at company demise.  Huge difference in size of company
9.  ON EXISTING RECORD: "The television technology was launched on NBC during its "Must See TV" programming" CORRECTION NEEDED:  seems the Tv version was launched August 1997, and belo confirms this since it was inside a Belo syndicated TV show called Net Talk.  Time line incorrect here.  NBC, from my understanding was a PROMOTION for NBC exclusively but the technology was already in use on ABC, CBS, and others in syndication of some sort.  SEC S1 shows this as well.
10.  ON EXISTING RECORD: "blog Gizmodo voted the CueCat the #1 worst invention of the "2000s" decade.[6]"  CORRECTION NEEDED:  seems GIZMODO did a redo a year later covering scanning commerce and now shows its a top app and may have as many as 156,000,000 worldwide users.  This is the intellectual property that RPX licenses, seems the technology survived and the cat was all that got cooked.  Important to note
11.  ON EXISTING ARTICLE: "approximately 140,000 CueCat users " CORRECTION NEEDED:  seems this was retracted and updated to just over 14,000 unsers in total.  Seems a huge difference. Plus, this is in contrast to 1,000,000 active and registered users.  Big difference don't you guys think?
12.   ON EXISTING RECORD: "The booklover social networking site LibraryThing sells USB CueCats to aid with scanning ISBN barcodes for entering books into the site." CoRRECTION NEEDED:  Technorati did a review in 150 apps based on cuecat technology and Ebay announced 56,000,000 users of its scan shop app based on their license of cuecat technology.  Seems more apps and such should be added here?
13.  ON EXISTING RECORD:  "than 110 granted US patents" on bottom of page, duplicates an erro at top but still a wrong number.
These are really minor touches in how the sentences are worded.  Any suggestions? and I will submit single line corrections here for review with the relevant links.
Want to know IF there are any objections before I enter all this in.  I will post sentences and corrections line by line and seek your approvals.  ThanksProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take them one at a time, and please provide a solid reference to a reliable source for each change you propose.  When you say that a change is a "correction", please be clear about what the incorrect information is.  Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CueCat factual record errors  ADVICE PLEASE 

message: Wow, Cullen, I just went back and relooked at records that would be relevant to my update of cue cat facts and I find that BOTH you and Bbb23 edited the Net Talk Live record the exact same way you did to the Cue cat file and in the same span of time.  Whats the connection here?
You have asserted that you and Bbb23 are in no way connected and you took offense when I pointed that out on Cue cat record and then here is the SAME thing on Net Talk live record.  Can you help me understand how you TWO randomly edited the same two records? The same span of time and same deleting good facts and links??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Bbb23 and I became aware of these two articles at approximately the same time.  The connection is clear - these are related articles because, as you well know, both are associated with Jeffry Jovan Philyaw, also known as J. Hutton Pulitzer.  This person was the creator and host of the talk show in question, and also the inventor of the CueCat, which lost roughly US $185 million of its investor's money.  We do not edit at random - we both monitor problematic articles.  Bbb23 and I have no connection other than that we are both active Wikipedia editors who pay attention to controversial topics, and try to ensure that Wikipedia articles about such topics comply with our standards here. There are many such editors here, who communicate and cooperate from time to time.  It is exactly that sort of collaboration that has produced the world's greatest encyclopedia, with nearly 3.8 million articles in English, and millions more in other languages. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cullen and Bbb23???/ Whats the connection 

message: I have expanded this article based on what reliable, independent sources have said about the CueCat at the time of its introduction, and since then.  I intend to remove any claims that are not based on reliable, independent sources.  Any further additions to the article must be based on what indisputably reliable, independent sources say.  There will be no exceptions to this. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: Would like to add the Mark Cuban S
"Stupidest Invention" comment but don't really know how to add link, can someone help me?  Here is the link:
http://www.americanwaymag.com/dallas-mavericks-internet-millionaire-mark-cuban  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs) 19:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This shouldn't be added to the article.  It is a passing mention, not in-depth coverage, and Mark Cuban has no expertise that I am aware of with regards to evaluating inventions in the computer technology area.  Walter Mossberg is a much better source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MARK CUBAN "Stupidest idea" 

message: Here is what I was referring to on the items you posted on Jovan 
"Controversial, poorly-sourced claims in biographies of living people should be deleted immediately."
I followed the Wiki policy and since they DO NOT allow that and the references were not what you said I deleted the two of your comments on that.  Yes, he has the "Stupidest invention ever" and I gave you links there, but you can;t post what you psoted, its against wiki rules.  Sorry  but you or you two know better ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cullen Kbb23 here is the issue with the libel in the record 

message: To all:
I presented links and facts relevant to the cue cat history.  These keep getting undone but one key fact and I dont want to get into a war of edits with C.Fred bbb23 or Cullen. but the facts speak for themselves.  Cue cat is a merged record, that means it covers the company, the invention, the inventor, the investors, the software, the app, the backend and the database.  Here are NUMERIC FACTS:
WHY the RPX issue and license is REAL VALID AND IMPORTANT:
On the article for cuecat the reference count are as follows:
13 references to cue cat as device
8 references to DigitalConvergence as company
22 references to the actual software and backend
12 references to the database actions
so, out of 55 references, 94% are about the software, company and database and YOU ASK WHY IS THE LICENSE IMPORTANT?
117 Patents and ONE is for CueCat the Device and 99.8% are about the software, backend and databsse functions and YOU ASK WHY THE LICENSE AND SUCH IS IMPORTANT TO THE RECORD?
So, FRED announced that the licensing of the IP and the subsequent roll out as an app that Microsost, Ebay and 100 others have licensed is important.  Can this be real?  I addded a comment about the CEO of Ebay John Donahoe and how they have 56,000,000 app downlaods of the scan app they have and have LICENSED from RPX (its a public fact) and he does not want to post it.
THIS IS AN ENCYLOPEDIA, we do NOT get to choose wich facts please use.  NOW I can tell there are haters of and on cue cat, and ALL I have done is clean those UP BUT NOT DELETED, we have to do ALL FACTS, not just slective facts.
Come on FRED.  This is an encylopedia, you can just pick and choose what are facts!!!!
Please help me!  ProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor can you synthesize facts to take the size of a patent library and the use of the patent library to infer that a current technology of the licensee is an offshoot of CueCat. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

text: And it still won't be a secondary source. —C.Fred (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not going to 'help'. You clearly don't understand how Wikipedia works. We aren't here to act as a forum for persons attempting to pursue some obscure battle regarding intellectual property rights of marginal significance to an article about an obsolete bar-code reader. If we are to have an article on the CueCat, it should be on topic. And the topic is the CueCat, not anything else. You asked for help, and it was given. Instead of thanks, we get a stream of hostility and accusations. Everything about your conduct suggests to me that your assertions to having no connection with the CueCat or it's parent company are bogus. Your editing style matches perfectly earlier 'contributors' to the article with the same agenda - I have no doubt in my mind that your claim not to have edited Wikipedia before is also bogus. Why should anyone help you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  OPEN CALL FOR ASSISTANCE CUE CAT REAL FACTS 

message: In the reference record of Cue Cat bb23 cullen added links from eric celeste a local dallas reporter and competitor of the dallas morning news (so of course thy want the dallas news to look bad) those links were the slams.
What about the 7 year later announcement that cue cat lived and is now used by google (see google license of Cue cat patents) and he even states he uses it and was wrong.
http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2008/02/01/google-performing-mouth-to-mouth-on-cuecat/
WHY NOT include this in the REAL unbiased HISTORY?
ProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the only connection I can draw is that they both involve putting bar codes all over the place. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  FOR ALL THE CUE CAT HATE here is some love 

message: Hello, I added a citation reference on cue cat, which was valid.  But it was undone and then I was warned by Bbb23 about 3 edits or blocked.
I see in the record, that Bbb23 makes numerous edits daily.  Is there some level needed to be able to edit at the rate of Bbb23?
(cur | prev) 21:05, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ (17,334 bytes) (→Introduction: based on Spolsky's notability as a critic, added one sentence about his review) (undo) 
(cur | prev) 20:19, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ (16,951 bytes) (→See also: remove irrelevant articles) (undo) 
(cur | prev) 20:13, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ (17,064 bytes) (→Introduction: added tag - too much unsourced material in section) (undo) 
(cur | prev) 20:12, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ (17,021 bytes) (→Introduction: removed Spolsky paragraph - WP:SPS) (undo) 
(cur | prev) 20:10, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ m (17,701 bytes) (→Introduction: fixed cite) (undo) 
(cur | prev) 20:07, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ (17,811 bytes) (→Introduction: tweak wording and edited cites) (undo) 
(cur | prev) 20:03, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ (18,164 bytes) (→Introduction: rewording assertions to match sources) (undo) 
(cur | prev) 19:55, 12 November 2011‎ Bbb23(talk | contribs)‎ (18,595 bytes) (→Introduction: copy edits and removal of some editorialization) (undo)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technoratti (talk • contribs)  
:Oh, here we go again. I didn't post a WP:3RR warning, as I just stated on your Talk page. However, you might want to read the policy for your own benefit.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:3RR. It is a three revert rule, not a three edit rule. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And although three reverts is a bright line beyond which a user usually gets blocked, one can get blocked for edit warring with fewer than three reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on cue cat reference links and three edit warning from Bbb23 

message: Surely the name began with a leading colon:, :CueCat. This New York Times article consistently presents it as :CueCat throughout, and presents the name of its maker as Digital:Convergence (with a colon separating the parts of the name) throughout.
Perhaps the article title can't begin with a colon, but shouldn't the rest of the article be accurate? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the name of the article should not have a leading colon. I disagree about using the colon stylization all the way through the article text. Instead, I think the reader should be told up front that the name was styled with a leading colon, and then the article text from that point on should be free from the leading colon. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Leading colon

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on CueCat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425063820/http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_4a.asp?search=&cat=Media&year=2001&Submit2=Search to http://www.cwhonors.org/Search/his_4a.asp?search=&cat=Media&year=2001&Submit2=Search
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525025820/http://www.cuecatpatents.com/The_Portfolio.html to http://www.cuecatpatents.com/The_Portfolio.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified