Talk:Intelligent vehicle technologies

Formal Tone

Thank you. Please express 'formal tone' or contribute to the article.

Employing a 'formal tone' on Intelligent vehicle technologies article would make it difficult for common folk to easily comprehend. I have deleted a very good article (Self-recording golf ball, golf ball cup, and reading device) I created because people did not understand it - later I was accused of vandalizing the article I deleted.

Please note contributions from the author (and other Wikipedians) continue to expound on the article and its contents - it also has been suggested to merge the contents of Intelligent vehicle technologies, and Emergency warning system for vehicles with Telematics. --Lperez2029 18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Formal tone

Based upon additional contributions made and the 'informal' nature of the article, I am removing the 'formal tone' notice. Thank you. --Lperez2029 14:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

LBS Links

I removed the LBS and Applocation links form Intelligent vehicle technologies article because they do not relate to or reflect intelligent automotive safety technologies -- while the information contained in these web sites seem valuable and informative perhaps they are better suitable for inclusion to the Telematics, or Vehicle tracking articles. Thank you. --Lperez2029 (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ben Stein wrote this article

the article seems to be boring to the point of purposeful crafting. almost as if it's not meant to be interesting and, therefore, not read. very few articles on wikipedia are this uniquely interesting while being incomprehensibly boring. Aceholiday (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

also of note is the link to the ivt homepage. it looks like it was designed by a 70 year old guy using netscape composer. Aceholiday (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am honored by the fact that you compare my article to something Ben Stein would write. I would love to hear Ben's rendition of Intelligent vehicle technologies as Ben is one of my favorite scholars and a very intelligent man who is very resourceful and serious and funny at the same time. Purposeful crafting yes -- boring depends on who's reading the article -- interesting, well, not all articles are interestingly written, or written to be interesting. As for ivt homepage designed by a 70 year old, take a look at Ben's web site and see if you get the same feeling Ben's House. So, by your statement, I believe you owe an apology to every senior citizen who uses or have used nestscape composer for web site design. Lperez2029 (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure re Ben Stein etc, but the final paragraph has been garbled. The first sentence and the final sentence are not in proper English (it looks like something may have been omitted from the first sentence, just before "RFID CODE...". In addition, it's not clear why the actual RFID code (or for that matter, the highway's name, or even the lane the vehicle is driving in) is given for a Wikipedia article that is explaining the concept?

Moreover, the paragraph is cumbersome in any case.

Might the first sentence be rewritten as something like "For example: A police officer, noting through IVT that a car's registration has expired, then uses Telematics to direct the car's driver to pull the car over."

Also, should the Google driverless car be part of this topic?Magnabonzo (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the "Examples" section. Magnabonzo (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Commercial links vs educational links

Please take notice: Wikipedia articles may include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as technology, professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews). Some external links such as SIE-Solutions and IVT home page are welcome, and Wikipedia's purpose may sometimes require a few external links as long as they are specifically related to each topic. Lperez2029 (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and if there is relevant research that is unbiased to one company or the other, information can be placed into the aritcle and referenced using a footnote to the website. You know very well that as one company puts a link in, another and another and another come. And then you get a link farm. And then you might have someone coming along who goes and deletes a link saying that this company doesn't have much to do with intelligent vehicle systems and then you get into a fight over who gets to spam their company on WP. I see it all the time. Thats why the WP:EL guidelines are pretty firmly against commercial links. Some commercial links like IMDB are pretty recognized as an authoritative unbiased source for filmographies, or cast listings. But no one links to their user comments about a file, nor to they link to the part of IMDB that sells videos or what ever. Apples and oranges and you know that. Montco (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is unequivocally nothing wrong with putting research and development companies in the article as a group supporting such technology -- or a link (under "other links" or "see also") on an article about the firm. Furthermore, to a limited extent wikipedia welcomes and supports external links as long as they expound on the content of the article [the technology]. As you browse wikipedia, you will find external links in just about every article in support of the content. We all know very well that as one company puts a link in others follow -- and then it becomes a gargantuan monstrous list and collection of "commercial sites" with the sole intent to promote sales and for marketing purposes. That is not the case with SIE and IVT, we are strictly reasearch and development -- take a closer look at the web sites and tell me where you see "commercial" interests of any kind. The web sites back up the article see what should be linkedand they are perfectly supportive of the reference.Lperez2029 (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I like a challenge.

"Give us your Concept or Problem and we'll Develop the Solution!"

"Services Provided:

Software consulting & development

Electronic circuit development & prototyping

Technology assessment, selection & evaluation

Reverse, re-engineering or product upgrades

Existing design maintenance & problem resolution

Independent design review and/or verification

Prototype fabrication

Documentation; engineering and end-user

Project management

Production problem resolution

No travel restrictions

Past security clearances, easily reactivated"

"Rates:

Highly competitive rates based either hourly (actual work performed), or by entire project :::(or sub-project) bid.

Off-site day rates, including travel days.

Parts and tools at cost (no markup, full receipts turned in with billing).

Project rates typically paid 1/3 at start, 1/3 prior to prototype delivery and 1/3 at :::completion and exchange of final documentation.

Call or email your project description and we can prepare specific figures for your :::consideration. "

That's just the front page. Commercial enough?

The intelligent vehicle technologies link doesn't even work,so its hard for me to tell if there is anything useful.Montco (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You keep missing the point in all due respect to wikipedia WP:EL policy Sir -- Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any, period. SIE and IVT sites are the official reference to the article. Furthermore, the primary objective of these sites is not commercial advertisement but to promote knowledge -- the engineering services we offer back up the product for design application which if you read further you will see that most of the technology we offer is innovative in nature and therefore becomes custom design work -- the information is purely educational, and we prove this by backing up the patent claims with 'actual functional engineering solutions that work'. Need more? Still not convinced? Look at IBM article and then see there the 'official web site' at the bottom -- look at hundreds of others. Per wikipedia policy. there is nothing wrong with its inclusion. Of interest to you may be the fact that the intelligent vehicle technologies article was reviewed and scrutinized by at least by one intelligence professional (who happens to write well referenced beautiful articles) and a patent lawyer who's an active wikepedian to name a few -- would you think they would have the same concerns as you have if there was a problem? It is WP policy that justifies their inclusion not whimsical idealism, therefore the links remain. While I appreciate you fervent support of the project, this is not a game of win or lose - it is policy that prevails.

NOTE: Intelligent Vehicle Technologies web servers are down momentarily and should be operational within a few hours. Lperez2029 (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But this is not an article on the organization. This is an article on the concept called IVT. Anshuk (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Article signifies corporeal entity intelligent vehicle technologies project. Lperez2029 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is not about the organization. Any article for a concept on WP will turn into a linkfarm if we link all the organizations selling products related to that concept. --Anshuk (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no expectation of article turning into a link farm. Please stop disrupting wikipedia. Lperez2029 (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Propose there should be two wikipedia pages, one for the concept of IVT and a separate one for the entity IVT at intelligentvehicletechnology.com. IVT.com, as a commercial site, *cannot* be the "official" site for the concept of IVT if the term is going to be freely used, including by other companies, even competitors to IVT.com.

The choice is pretty clear -- trademark the term intelligentvehicletechnology (or try to), or allow it to be freely used as a concept and enjoy the benefits of having the .com website at that name. In the former case, this page should be rewritten to clearly refer to the entity even if the entity is a major proponent of the concept; in the latter case, there should probably be two pages and the entity shouldn't feel that it can control the page referring to the concept. Alternatively, allow the page to founder as it is currently written, betwixt and between, neither wholly concept nor wholly entity, and allow some other similar term to become pre-eminent for the concept. Magnabonzo (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sections

I added some sections to try to make the article more accessible, but the article needs a lot more work. It's very difficult to understand as written. I simply don't have enough background to do more. JimVC3 (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take Notice

NOTICE: Intelligent Vehicle Technologies article was deleted by, and at the request of the Author/Owner. Lperez2029 (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

CSD Copyright material. "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a pagemove, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the page prior to the move.) If the author blanks the page (outside user space), this can be taken as a deletion request".

As you yourself mention at the top of this talk page, "Please note contributions from the author (and other Wikipedians) continue to expound on the article and its contents" — other editors have made substantial edits to the article as well. For this reason, it does not fit the criteria of WP:CSD#G7. If you would like to see it deleted you will have to nominate it for deletion using the Articles for Deletion process. ... discospinster _talk 02:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder is likely to be a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lperez2029 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What is it a copyright of? In other words, where was it pasted from? tedder (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent Vehicle Technologies to remain

I have decided to allow the page to remain on wikipedia. After consultation with my attorney, there is no violation of trademark [Intelligent Vehicle Technologies], provided crystal clear notice that the use of the phrase is a proprietary trademark of Luis Perez. Intelligent Vehicle Technologies is original and unique, and the page will further serve to educate the general public in the use of telematic safety systems I have invented. I would like to thank wp admins for their support and for diligently protecting the page. Lperez2029

Please continue to recognize that Luis Perez does not own this page, and no legal threats should be made on Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Tedder does not understand Intellectual Property (I never said I owned the page). What I own is the name trademark "Intelligent Vehicle Technologies". I wish to allow the page to remain, as wp has provided me a tremendous service for people to understand telematic safety systems. This is the main reason that I also monetarily support wp every year, because it is a cause well worth it for the promotion of new technology. I wrote the Article, and I'm happy that you so dearly defend it my friend. Thank You! :) Lperez2029 ~

Wikipedia WP:EL policy

Wikipedia WP:EL policy -- "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." IVT site is the official reference to the article. Furthermore, the primary objective of the site is not commercial advertisement but to promote knowledge -- the engineering services back up the product for design application, which if you read further you will see that the technology is innovative in nature and therefore custom design work -- the information is purely educational, and we prove this by backing up the patent claims with 'actual functional engineering solutions that work'. Need more? Still not convinced? Look at IBM article and then see there the 'official web site' at the bottom -- look at hundreds of others. Per wikipedia policy. there is nothing wrong with its inclusion. Of interest to you may be the fact that the intelligent vehicle technologies article was reviewed and scrutinized by at least by one intelligence professional (who happens to write well referenced beautiful articles) and a patent lawyer who's an active wikepedian to name a few -- would you think they would have the same concerns as you have if there was a problem? It is WP policy that justifies their inclusion not whimsical idealism, therefore the links remain. While I appreciate you fervent support of the project, this is not a game of win or lose - it is policy that prevails. Lperez2029

The article on IBM is about IBM the company, not a concept that happens to be called IBM. Is this an article about IVT the company, or about the concept of IVT? I re-added the external link but changed the proper noun, since the article appears to be about the concept. Articles on Wikipedia are a work in progress, including this one. Just because it's been reviewed (by whom?) doesn't mean it's perfect. The lack of references is especially an issue. Also, please ensure you are signed in and use four tildes to sign your posts, as it will give the proper date to them. tedder (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Tedder,

Thanks for the update. earlier I expressed that I would leave the page be. Do you agree?? If not, would there be a problem? Lperez2029 (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You can leave it be, but it needs to continue to evolve. tedder (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Aha- I didn't realize this was accompanied with a revert. Why is it that you want the version to be perfectly what you left? The page needs much improvement. It's about the concept of "intelligent vehicle technologies", not a company named "Intelligent Vehicle Technologies". There are zero inline citations, which is a large red flag. tedder (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you appear to be the intellectual to refine the page, please do so. I hope not to be dissapointed. Lperez2029 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

and if you goof it up, (I still reserve the right to delete it :) Lperez2029 (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

So do you want to discuss why you reverted my last edits, then? Can you help find reliable neutral sources for the article? tedder (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Lperez2029, you reserve no rights to unilaterally control content found on this page. See the section below. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Intellectual property and ownership

I've been alerted to an issue on this talk page via WP:COIN.

First off, the intellectual property owner of the term "Intelligent vehicle technologies" has no more say here than any other editor. Fair use under US law states that, "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

It seems that Lperez2029 feels that they somehow have ownership over the contents of this article based on their misunderstanding of 17 U.S.C. § 107 and lack of understanding as to what owning IP entitles them to. Perhaps an example will illuminate the situation. Ford has no control over what a newspaper writes about it, a TV show says about it, and what a Wikipedia article (or any encyclopedia) states about it. This is of course unless the statements are libelous and therefore false and damaging to the entity being covered, then they have the right to compensation.

This ownership will no longer be tolerated and such comment as this and this will not be tolerated.

Lperez2029, I should also warn you that making legal threats here is also prohibited and will result in you being immediately and indefinitely blocked from editing all of Wikipedia.

I'm confident that we can move on from this and create an article that everyone is happy with. Lperez2029, do you understand that you were incorrect, that you do not own the content found in this article and have no more say regarding its contents than any other editor? If not, I suspect that you will soon be blocked or banned from editing. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sock Puppet?

The preceding announcement is deemed unintelligible. Lperez2029 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Lperez2029 (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll look past the assumption of bad faith that I'm a sock puppet and ask that you attempt to read it again. Maybe your attorney can help you understand what "Fair Use" means. If this is your official response to my question above, I'm going to suggest that you be blocked or banned from editing this topic. OlYeller21^Talktome 03:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

Lperez2029 has been indefinitely blocked from editing WP due to violation WP:NLT. I feel that at this point, we can move on to the next step and determine the notability of this subject and the article that this article seems to have forked from (Intelligent transportation system). We may also need to determine if this article is exclusively about a concept or about a company that goes by the same name. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Article problems

I have looked at this article, and the talk pages, and there are several problems. Apparently this article was created actually as a company article and the result was the creation (at the time) of a new term. Although articles were, and I suspect still are, created using external links only as a source or reference, this practice is not supported by any Wikipedia:policies and guidelines.

• 1)- Notability: A lack of WP:NOTABILITY became apparent from the start and was noted 30 July 2012. The article has two tags, since Feb. 2009 and Dec. 2010, and this will not likely change.

• 2)- Article name: The Intelligent Vehicle Technology Transfer (IVTT) Program states, "The IVTT Program will: serve as a central knowledge base for intelligent vehicle technology". The title uses the company named plural "technologies" rather than singular "technology", which is part of intelligent vehicle systems.The terminology, corresponding to the title name, apparently has not become common since the article creation in 2006.

If the company would have become notable this article could be transformed into such a company article. There is a book by the title name but this article is not about the book.

I have only found two references to the name, so this article needs to be merged somewhere or deleted. Otr500 (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)