User:PTMY
 | This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding these Wikipedia articles: |
Conflicts of Interest[edit]
Let's face it, I've had some personal experience with almost every page I've edited; however, the relationships are distant, and I've done my best to play by the rules of neutral presentation and using 3rd party sources as references. -- PTMY (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Replicant Operating System[edit]
I have installed and used Replicant_(operating_system) on a phone. I have no other connection. -- PTMY (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Unihertz[edit]
I was a customer in the Kickstarter campaign, and purchased a Jelly Pro phone. I have no other connection. -- PTMY (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Geocaching[edit]
Disclaimer: Here now because I've been a geocacher, looked for info' on alternatives to the one big, business site, and found few details here. More than just few details, I found a relatively biased article. The Geocaching article seems headed for advertisement status, and I'm wondering why Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geocaching never got off the ground.
From the Geocaching article history, it's clear that details on other sites have been systematically removed since around early-mid 2011, and as recently as December 24, 2012. Self-published information, as well as several links to the site, have been allowed to remain for the one big, business site, but similar information from the lesser known sites has been removed for reasons like "remove unsourced." I've seen similar before on other topics in wikipedia, tried to bring some more neutral POV, and been chased away by those who have more time to devote to this. I know this is nothing new to anyone who examines the details of a familiar topic.
Yes, I've had a couple negative experiences with the one big business site. I've also had some experiences with the lesser known sites. Does that disqualify me or make me too disgruntled to help improve this article? I'm sure someone will tell me soon enough, and I will go away again.
I'm not saying this article is the worst ever seen.
I AM saying when a search for "history of geocaching" turns up a arguably better referenced article (http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/), but that article is not mentioned here, and many of those details are not mentioned here, then something seems a bit off.
I AM saying when anyone can quickly learn that c:geo was banned from even being mentioned at the big company site's forums, and that isn't mentioned here, then something seems a bit off.
I'm saying what's the point of parroting variable information like numbers of caches and cachers from the big, business site, when there's already several links to that site where the information is prominently, frequently updated?
For my money, opencaching.us and the 10 associated international sites are quite impressive. How can it be that I don't find a SINGLE link to any of them in this article? Why were they removed, but the big, business site links stayed? This does not seem neutral.
- From the opencaching.us wiki, "Countries with opencaching websites include the United States, Germany, Sweden, Poland, Czech Republic, Latvia, Norway, Japan and the United Kingdom. There are competing sites that list other geocaches as well, but there are often fees and/or usage restrictions associated with those sites. As the hobby continues to grow, it is likely that Opencaching sites will be available in more countries."
--PTMY (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Oddly enough, Jeremy Irish, founder of Grounded, Inc and Groundspeak, apparently shares a not dissimilar lack of "love" for Wikipedia and its editors. :-) (Thanks Wikipedia. Now I Know I Don't Need You, January, 19, 2012)
--PTMY (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)