Talk:DataTreasury

Keith De Lucia

An anonymous editor added important, but potentially defamatory information about Keith De Lucia to the article. The information might be acceptable if scrutinized to remove POV and properly referenced.--Nowa (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has cited "Florida State Corrections DOC#953398" as a reference for the assertion that Keith De Lucia has had a felony theft conviction. I've searched Florida Offender Search Page and was not able to confirm entries for either offender 953398, "Keith De Lucia", "Keith DeLucia" or "Keith Lucia". I would be happy to put in the fact that Keith De Lucia has a felony conviction, but we need to have an authoritative reference.--Nowa (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See Gathering References.--Nowa (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Politico

Is The Politico a reliable source? No other source attests to the fact that Keith DeLucia and Keith Wickey are the same person or that Keith Wickey had been convicted of armed robbery.--Nowa (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I also found nothing in a Google News Archive search for a robbery of an armored car in Suffolk County NY in 1993 - 1995 [1]--Nowa (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the article to better reflect the situation (for now), although this does not address the reliability of The Politico... --Edcolins (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to doubt the Politico and it looks to be a good article in that publication written by someone with a good background. However, this article on Wikipedia doesn't even come close to being NPOV, in my view and looks to be just an attempt to tarnish the reputation of the DataTreasury people. I'll try some edits, using Politico as a source for all sides. GDallimore (Talk) 13:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Editor Edcolins

Moved from User talk:Nowa. Please continue the discussion here. --Edcolins (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that editor Edcolins' edits to DataTreasury are less than objective as he has claimed to be a shareholder and consultant to the company. I will edit and comunicate through proxy IPs, since I am part of the lobby effort wherein I have researched and found much about the company and its principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.156.251 (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor,

Thank you for your note and your contributions to DataTreasury. I think you’ve added important new content.

You might want to review the Wikipedia policies on Neutral Point of View and No Original Research. Following these guidelines should make your editing more efficient and effective.

In the meantime, please bear in mind that sysops and senior editors, such as EdColins and GDallimore, have gained the respect of the Wiki community over the past few years as objective and fair minded. If you abide by Wikipedia editing guidelines, I think you will find that they will accept your contributions even if they fly in the face of their personal biases.

You also might want to consider setting up a user account of your own if you are going to make future contributions. This will help build your own reputation as an objective, fair minded and skilled editor.--Nowa (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nowa! Thanks for your message on my talk page. I wonder to which ones of my edits this anonymous editor is referring. My edits were purely editorial: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I also wonder where I would have "claimed to be a shareholder and consultant to the company"!? Anyway, thanks for informing of the strange things happening here.. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nowa and edcolins- While your efforts to disseminate information is certainly helpful and appreciated by many on the web including myself, realize that there are many paid professionals, like myself, examining this company and its actions. Some are paid by DataTreasury or its attorneys, others are paid by corporate interests and some are journalists. So, i have no need or desire to gain the respect of the wiki community, since i am paid for my work away... you will see that all of my edits and statements are factual and true, i just don’t have the time to find citations on the web. i will leave that to you guys :)

Now, in answer to edcolins' question about what was biased, try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DataTreasury&diff=202011677&oldid=201946586

edcolins knows first hand that the conviction is a FACT, because he KNOWS mr. de lucia, so the attempt to dilute the impact of that conviction, by implying that politico may be wrong by use of the phrase "according to", is disingenuous at best. Further, edcolins strongly implies to you above that he is not an interested party by carefully stating wonder and incredulity about where he would have '"claimed to be a shareholder and consultant to the company"!?'

The only axe I have here NOW is that I find it ironic and bothersome that my credibility is called into question by a person who is trying to influence and deceive. SO I ASK YOU EDCOLINS:

ARE YOU OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A SHAREOWNER AND/OR CONSULTANT TO THE COMPANY? AND

DO YOU HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE Of THE WIKEY/DE LUCIA CONVICTION?

I think you owe it to your friends at wiki to at least answer these questions honestly without parsing the words or evading the spirit of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.156.251 (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I am not and I have never been a shareowner and/or consultant to the company. And I have no first hand knowledge of De Lucia. So that you know. If I had a conflict of interest, I would not edit the article under WP:COI. Please also read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are a paid lobbyist working on behalf of either DataTreasury or any financial institution with an interest in DataTreasury, I am afraid that you should probably not be editing any articles on this topic in view of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In view of the accusations you make against Edcolins that he also has a conflict of interests, I decided to look over the article myself and have done what I think is necessary to remove unbalanced information in the article. You'll note that the information about the conviction is still in there, but has been rephrased to ensure a more neutral point of view and to ensure that undue weight is not given to these convictions in an article which is about the company, not about its officers.

Edcolins appears to have stepped back from this discussion and has made no significant edits to the DataTreasury article since your accusations, so I think the matter of whether he is connected is now irrelevant.

If you do want to continue making edits, I recommend you take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before doing so. In particular, any disparaging comment about a living person MUST be reliably sourced. If not, it will be removed to avoid potential libel claims.

I would add one thing that I do not consider myself to be in any way a "senior editor". My views have no more weight than anyone else's. However, since you admit to having a conflict of interets, I do think you should think very carefully about making any more edits on this topic and follow the guidlines given in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thank you. GDallimore (Talk) 09:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi G- i use the term senior editor becasue nowa did above. dont know alot about wiki nor do i have much desire to learn. i dont care too much about this artcle even except that a supposedly objective "senior" or "sysop" editor has attempted to decieve on these very pages.

i think that your edits are fair, the legal/ethical issues regarding the owners and officers are very relavant here for 2 reasons. 1- They are being adressed RIGHT NOW in the current discusions regarding the company in the us congress (saying that they shouldnt be may just be your POV) 2- If congress is going to pay any money to DataTreasury legal/ethical issues of its owners and officers will need to be vetted (in the US a convicetd felon may not run a company with public debt or equity). The bottom line is that an armored car robery is pretty crazy thing to try/do (i actually question the veracity of this since it seems so out there), there is not much worse a company CEO can have in his past if capital risk/preservation is main concern of the shareowners. so while you say that its about the company not the officers, i think that you are at odds with legal/business practice precedent and history especially when it comes to such high crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.156.251 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether any of this is true or a fact or not is irrelevant. NOTHING goes into the article that disparages a living person without being sourced. I'm even concerned about discussing some of these topics on this talk page with a source and have asked for guidance from editors who are more used to writing biography articles. GDallimore (Talk) 17:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

editor EdColins

edcolins is an editor and is or has been a paid consultant / employee of the company. He is also a shareholder and knows the principles directly.

He has tacitly denied this to the wiki community.

He has made also edits that seek to dampen the affect of information regarding the company's principles and owners. This information is very relavant to the company right now because it is being used RIGHT NOW by the company's foes, BOTH lobbyists and lawmakers alike.

edcolins should answer to the wiki community for this, otherwise the credibility of everyone, including those backing him on wiki, is compromised.

i will not make any more edits since my point of view may be conflicted. i am new to wiki and your comments are helpful. Any information i think may be helpful you all i will simply post to the main editors directly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.156.251 (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. As mentioned above, I have no connection with the subject of the article. I just came here because Nowa asked for some help (here). So, please assume good faith and stop making groundless accusations. --Edcolins (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

you say they are groundless simply because there is no link to a website that to confirm this. Why should i ASSUME good faith when we BOTH know you ARE connected to the company AND have first hand knowledge the De Lucia convictions. you both forget, that these issues are bigger than a volunteer encyclopedia and millions are being spent on research on both sides... so it should be plausable to you edcolins that many know plenty about plausible to you G that many people know a lot about this company from such research but simply cant find links online to source it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.156.251 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Now why on earth would nowa ask YOU, edcolins, for backup on DataTreaury, specifically in reference to the felony conviction? How can we deduce this? nowa asks you for "help om DataTreasury" and immediately thereafter posts that he cannot find the felony conviction on the FL website. What in your past history with nowa would make him think you would know about a felony conviction, when all your earier coorespondence with nowa was regarding patents and your patent expertise... the plot thickens... NOW BOTH NOWA AND COLINS owe an explanation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.156.251 (talk)

Eastern District of Texas

We have a conflict over OR vs notability. The question is, should this article mention that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is a preferred court in the US to bring patent infringement law suits due to its "rocket docket"? I feel that it is since it supports why it is notable. Other editors disagree since there are no references which support the assertion that DataTreasury filed its lawsuits in this court because it was a preferred court. They view it as original research. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but would appreciate other editors weighing in on proper Wikipedia policy.--Nowa (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why notability is an issue. Information in an article doesn't need to be notable, provided it's more than just trivia. Only the topic of the article needs to be notable. So the only issue left is that of original synthesis of two separate pieces information in the article. Saying that the Texas court is noted to be patent friendly and a rocket docket implies that that was why the suit was filed there and that implication needs to be avoided unless basked up by a reliable source, partcularly when the more likely explanation is that the company just filed suit in a geographically convenient court. GDallimore (Talk) 15:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP

I have just deleted two paragraphs based on serious allegations against BLPs without appropriate sourcing. Far too much of this article was sourced to one article [7] from The Politico which I sincerely doubt is a mainstream enough source for such serious allegations. Please don't restore it without some better sources for this.--Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're going to need to be more specific than "BLP!" and "I doubt (but really don't know) that this is a good source." As far as I can tell, Politico has been increasingly more respected due to their reporting during the primaries and now during the general campaign. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to allege that living people have been involved in crime then you need a better source than something that is "increasingly respected". Note that the NewsDay reference doesn't mention Keith DeLucia, and just confirms that someone with another name appeared to be involved in theft. The Washington Post article is fine, of course, and doesn't contain anything controversial related about the principals anyway, and the part of the sentence sourced to WP "banks alleging that DataTreasury bought up patents for the system that underlies electronic transfers and is trying to shake down companies for licensing fees" is fine and can be restored for sure. The second paragraph is also fine. I will restore it with the WP sentence since it would now sort of makes sense!--Slp1 (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest editors here take the question of the reliability of The Politico to the WP:RSN for their opinions there. I am quite confident that it is not reliable enough to support to negative allegations about living people as an only source, but since there has been some doubt expressed on this page about whether it is a reliable source at all, it might be worth clearing it up there.--Slp1 (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that, like many other articles, there really aren't any editors involved in this article. We have one editor removing information without discussion and another editor (me) that happens to have this on his watchlist and objects to the removal of sourced information without discussion or rationale. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand the problem and frustration with editors removing sourced information without giving valid reason or any at all. I have certainly had similar problems on other articles! It is easy to see their edits as POV pushing and a desire to censor information (and often they are) but sometimes at core there is an reasonable policy based reason for their actions. I can't speak for all of the deletions here, but in this case I would tend to agree that the cuts of the BLP information were very reasonable under WP:BLP, and in particular WP:GRAPEVINE and [8]. But it occurs to me that besides the WP:RSN, the WP:BLPN might be a useful resource to check with if anybody wants to restore the BLP information.

This issue aside, I do think that far too much of this article is sourced to the The Politico piece. The WP article on this fairly small circulation paper isn't exactly inspiring about its reliability, for example. There must be better sources for this article. I will try and find some and will let you know what I find. --Slp1 (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the DeLucia - Keith Wickey allegations should be removed from the article pending a second confirming source. I made a modest effort to confirm (see above) but was unable to find a second source that they were even the same person.--Nowa (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have put the information back in, although making it clear that these are allegations (the word used in the Politico article). There is nothing in BLP to say that more than one source is needed to confirm information that is BLP related. I have also seen nothing to suggest that Politico is unreliable and nobody seems to have taken it to BLP. In fact, the converse would seem to be true in the present case at least since Politico report that they spoke with DataTreasury and say (with subsequent quotes):

"DataTreasury acknowledged the old legal problems but dismissed them as having little to do with the company’s current business."

Unreliable may be debateable, but I don't for one moment believe the article would include an outright lie.

Ultimately, if this personal information is going to be removed, then all the quotes from DataTreasury about smear campaigns needs to go too, since this was in response to the personal allegations, not any allegations made against DataTreasury as a company. Rewriting these quotes to fit the modified article is just as bad in my view as modifying the article in the first place. GDallimore (Talk) 13:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Addition: I think this material SHOULD be in the article because it is relevant to the lobbying efforts surrounding this company and its patents. When I first came across this article, it was all about the allegations and included such extensive (unsourced) details that it may well have been part of the lobbying effort itself to smear these people. As it now stands, I think the balance is right between personal attacks and explaining how these are relevant to the company.

By the way, I saw a report today that DataTreasury recently settled one of its patent suits with the Bank of New York so this is still an ongoing thing.[9] The article is subscription only, though. Anyone got more details? Anything about the lobbying efforts? GDallimore (Talk) 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I can't agree that it was appropriate to add back the BLP allegations (even in modified, much improved form) without discussion here or by asking for advise one of the noticeboards suggested. There was a fairly clear opinion that a second source was needed from at least two of us, given that Politico is hardly the most mainstream of sources, and these are serious allegations. I will be posting at the WP:RSN for further input. --Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Citing primary sources, such as court documents, not allowed

In Wikipedia, we can only cite reliable secondary sources, such as newspaper articles. Citing a court document might at first seem to make sense, but that amounts to original research. As an encyclopedia (and not a refereed journal) we can only summarize what other reliable sources say. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources--Nowa (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We can't cite them, but we use primary sources for illustration frequently. Rklawton (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but what do you mean by "illustration"?--Nowa (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I just deleted the section on "invention of ....technology" because it relies 100% on the declarations of Ballard. I agree with the above comments -- we are supposed to use secondary, published sources. The declaration is more or less a self published source WP:SPS and is extremely self-serving. As the policy page states:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Because the section relies solely on the declaration which is self-serving, and makes claims about 3rd parties (the angel investor), and the section relies solely on this source, the section cannot stay. This is even more important due to WP:BLPJytdog (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)