User talk:RobinColclough

September 2011

I am a developer with many years experience and any information I edit is based on available referenced facts and opinion from other experts. When developers refer to Wikipedia for information on the next commerical technology being pushed, they need to know both sides of the story, not just what the commercial company is advertising. Hello RobinColclough. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. [1] MrOllie (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you be more specific because I don't know where the problem is. It would help to identify the exact area where you think the breach exists so that I can understand the problem.

In addition, I am being blocked from adding that "OWNTV" is my personal registered trademark that I am using for a business, and preference has been give to the illegal use by the Oprah Winfrey Network TV, i.e. O.W.N. T.V.. They are not allowed, as is everyone, to use someone elses trademark, putting "OWNTV" or "OWN TV" on their website is a breach with my registration.

Why am I not permitted to list the correct owner of this trademark? RobinColclough (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of misdeed in Media Foundation

Hello, Robin

I have seen your reverts in Media Foundation and read your edit summary. Frankly, I do not share your concern nor I do believe that your concerns are truly concerns. Per WP:BLP, allegations of evil misdeed in Wikipedia require reliable secondary sources so ironclad that withstands the most brutal scrutiny in the world. Removal of these allegations fall within the purview of WP:NOT3RR, article 7.

I do not have a habit of threatening anyone, so, for now, I just hope that you see sense and not resort to any attempt to circumvent Wikipedia policies.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have notified an administrator. I advise you to contemplate your next move very carefully. There is a backlash in Wikipedia against people who accuse others without sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear "Lisa"

I have added factual information that is well known by those in the respective sectors, and I have included third-party references.

Really, such threatening tones on our first conversation? A little excessive no?!

If you like, I could add to the Microsoft / Bill Gates pages full details of the fines the company received for bad practices, plus Court testimony of expert witnesses saying how Microsoft and Intel have attempted to control the markets to their interests and at the computer industry and users´ costs.

As a fellow of the Royal Society and an engineer for the last 20-years having managed large international projects, I suspect that your qualifications and experience do not give your comments as much credibility as you would wish.

Lets not forget, for example, that Microsoft have received hundreds of millions of dollars of fines from European and US governments for bad practices! And of course its not just Microsoft, Intel received record fines for having paid money to PC manufacturers such as DELL to not use AMD processors.

If Wikipedia doesn´t allow also the dirty side of the history of people like Bill Gates and Microsoft to be published, it will lose public credibility, mark my words.

How much money in donations has Intel and Microsoft given to Wikipedia?

I looked for that information but it seems there is no transparency at Wikipedia in this regard.

You threats are very transparent and if Wiki administrators don´t want to see that, I hardly care, but many people will start to lose faith in the veracity of Wikipedia pages.

Yours

Robin

Let me make this clear to you: Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox or advertising platform, and your professional accreditation gives you no particular right to use articles here to advance your opinions on the motives of their respective subjects. Wikipedia has thus far survived thirteen years of adherance to its neutral point of view policy, and so I'm disinclined to believe that its "public credibility" will start to suffer now unless your aggressively negative point of view on an obscure Windows component is left in place. I note that you've previously been warned about your conduct for using Wikipedia to promote software that you have a vested interest in: even someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy should understand that this is a far clearer conflict in interest than your baseless assertions of Microsoft influence over our editors. Given that you're still doing so three years after the initial notice, consider this your final warning: the next time you insert obviously unbalanced or promotional material into our articles, or accuse editors of their own conflict of interest without firm evidence, you will be blocked from editing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, what you've done is protect a giant commercial company by blocking negative factual information that the public have a right to know about. Media Foundation is not fully implemented by Microsoft staff's own statements, yet support for the still widely used directshow has been pulled. This isn't the first time giant corporations have done such things, and its always done with a commercial reason that often goes against public and industry interests. That wikipedia is protecting the likes of Gates and Microsoft is despicable, and raises concerns on its overall credibility. Wikipedia, funded by Bill Gates, Microsoft and Intel?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinColclough (talk • contribs) 23:42, 30 April 2014‎

You're welcome to harbour your knee-jerk conspiracy theories; you are not welcome to air them here. You will work within the framework that we have established to edit articles (which allows for dissent and the challenging of the assertions of the powerful, if backed up by reliable sources) or you will not edit our articles. The choice is yours. For what it's worth, I dare say that I'd make more money working in PR for Microsoft than I would editing Wikipedia for free. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, with your experiences in software development, assuming its not just embedded that you´ve worked in, you should be able to follow the information I posted from third-party sources such as technical forums and Microsoft´s own networks, such as social.msdn.Microsoft.com. I posted references to experts complaining that Microsoft had dropped support for a perfectly functional multimedia API, DirectShow, and that it was pushing Media Foundation which was fully functional and still has not even got MPEG2 support. Why are Microsoft pushing Media Foundation? Well Microsoft expert Becky Weiss has stated publicly (I gave the link), that it was because Media Foundation has "strong support for media protection". Mmmmm and who wants media protection? Not the public for sure.

So I strongly refute your unfounded allegations, and I question why you are protecting Microsoft from having the truth about what they are doing in relation to DirectShow and Media Foundation.

Lets not forget that both APIs are COM based, and the other reason for Media Foundation´s existence, that of less "glitchy" playback, is ridiculous given than playback quality can be improved through the implementation of filters, not to mention the DShow relies on the same lower-level APIs as Media Foundation. Re-inventing the wheel at the cost of developers so that big business can lock down the media.

So if you´re going to make claims, you should be able to back them up with hard facts to counteract the information I´ve presented, that you blocked, so far, without any concrete evidence against what I posted.

Have a great day!

March 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on OWN TV. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but in this case "OWNTV" is a registered trademark that Oprah Winfrey Network T V has not right to use even if the initials of their business are O.W.N.T.V.

As such, those editing the page to say that "OWNTV" or "OWN TV" is Oprah Winfreys show are infringing the legal use of my trademark. As such, Wikileaks administrators should not allow legal infringements of copyright or trademark rights.

Is there a problem with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.58.43 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not allowed to mention that I own the trademark in the USA and Europe to OWNTV?

Nomination of ViewPoint 3D for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ViewPoint 3D is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ViewPoint 3D until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SageGreenRider (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ViewPoint3D is a long-term software development project with many contributors, many of whom haven't received any financial benefit, aimed at creating truly interactive (real-time) 3D content creation and playback tools, which currently either do not exist or are prohibitively expensive.

The software is, currently, unique as it can create and render complex 3D scenes in real-time, scenes of up to 6 million primitives on single-chip computers or tablets, with real shadows and environmental reflections, that very uniquely also allows automated updating based on remote data feeds, such as RSS, multicast datagrams and live video streams, in up to 4K (UHD) resolution.

The project is financed by contributors without a single dollar from any large company, in addition, the software is free for all non-profit users.

So why would anyone want to have the page deleted from Wikipedia? RobinColclough (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is one of notability WP:GNG But please confine further discussion on this topic to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ViewPoint 3D. Otherwise the various inputs will be scattered. SageGreenRider (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing and threats of legal action

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got it!! (I'm talking to a bot?!) RobinColclough (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, RobinColclough. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. However, some of these contributions are problematic. You might find that spending some time understanding what wikipedia is and is not will lead to a more satisfactory experience here. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! SageGreenRider (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again, learning my way around! RobinColclough (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly tip

If you want to save ViewPoint 3D from deletion, you should search for and cite reliable sources WP:RS that mention the company and/or its products. htht SageGreenRider (talk)

Reply:

Thanks for the tip, I've now included press articles from Computer Weekly, a leading industry technology magazine and website with over 40-year history, Digital Signage Today, I guess its probably the leading industry media portal, and others such as ScreenMedia ProRobinColclough (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Great! If you can find a couple more, it will help. Especially articles where Viewpoint 3D is the main topic, not just a mention. BTW, I know it's a pain, but the notability threshold is what keeps Wikipedia from being a mere mirror of the web itself. It's not intended that it's a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. The expectation readers have is that if there's an article on it, the topic must be somewhat important. That's part of our value add. hth. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

3 of the 5 references are Press news entirely focused on the project. BTW, ViewPoint3D provides unique features for the 3D sector, such as live-data in 3D scenes, direct autostereoscopic output, instant rendering, 24x7 operation, embedded and desktop operation. You seem to imply repeatedly that it is just any other software not worthy of a mention. Are you BTW an expert on 3D software? RobinColclough (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know almost nothing about 3D software. I came across the article by chance. The unique features you claim are not sufficient in themselves for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Anyone can claim "My product is unique." What is sufficient is that multiple, independent, reliable sources have written about your software (presumably as a result of those unique features). That's the litmus test we use on this project. It's by citing those independent sources that the article can be saved. Make sense? BTW, did you read WP:GNG and WG:COMPANY? SageGreenRider (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that in your opinion, having stated you know almost nothing about the subject, that the 4 independent Press articles

on the page, plus project website with expert review ^[1], would signify that this software project has no notable value to be included in Wikipedia, and that you alone can decide that, or do you have independent support? RobinColclough (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You told me to "cite reliable sources WP:RS that mention the company and/or its products", and we did, we cited four well known professional articles, produced by well known experts in the field, who publish for a living, and only publish relevant articles. I also directed you to an independent review from a 3D expert. Having done that, you now write "Anyone can claim "My product is unique." What is sufficient is that multiple, independent, reliable sources have written about your software".

So I', very puzzled as to why you didn't even check those links out rather than coming back with more negative feedback? Clearly, leading publications only print articles on technology of interest to their readers. I would kindly request that other Wiki mediators please give their views at this point.RobinColclough (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, other contributors should certainly jump in. Certainly, someone else will look at all the inputs and close the debate. The proposer (me) is never the decider/closer. I don't need to know anything about 3D software to decide about notability. "Reliable sources" is a well-defined concept that non-experts can easily apply. For example, the PDF you cite above is hosted on your website and is therefore not independent. The other sources you added in the past few days are better. I did read them... I'm not trying to be negative nor attack you. I'm trying to balance the need for wikipedia to have not only more contributions but also high quality ones. I realise you are emotionally attached to your project and that you believe in it and the possibility of the article being deleted makes you angry but Wikipedia isn't your advertising platform not matter how worthy the project it. I have no opinion on whether your project is or is not unique. Only independent sources can decided that. If you want other people to look at it, I encourage you to post a question at WP:TEAHOUSE as to how you can accomplish that. I believe there are mechanisms but I don't know what they are. hth. SageGreenRider (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the need to review and push contributors to improve quality, I also understand that non-experts can decide on merit based on independent supporting material as a first stop, but why push for deletion before even asking for further references, or did that happen?

I've posted the independent references as requested, so I'd prefer to leave it up to the deciders given that Wiki is a collaborative effort. I'm not angry though, just surprised at how this has been handled. RobinColclough (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can be a confusing place. Did you try the tutorial at WP:TWA? Yes, asking for further references is implicit in the process, and I also mentioned this to you several times. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion for the whole policy, in particular "You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones)." If the closer feels the additions you made after I nominated it address the issues raised, then they will close the debate as "Keep". hth SageGreenRider (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than contacting us about this issue, you had a "Delete as not notable?" notice slapped over it, in full public view, realizing, as you must have, the damage that would do. It would be better, if there is no consensus within Wiki's editors, to remove the page and all references to it in Wikipedia, such as in Autostereoscopy and 2D-plus-depth, rather than leave that banner hanging over it. No need to reply. RobinColclough (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are not "badges of shame." They are there to promote action. Also, as I mentioned before as the primary contributor you have the option of moving the article out of main space and into your sandbox, removing the tag, adding reliable sources, and resubmitting via Articles for Creation. If you want to go that route, let me know and I can help you with the mechanics. SageGreenRider (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding right? Imagine: someone is looking for a 3D software to solve a particular problem, they find ViewPoint 3D, and the first thing they see is that its up for deletion. You really want to tell us that that's a good thing, that it will encourage people to try it? You must be either very naïve or not being very honest. Your comment about moving it to my sandbox is also just about as helpful. I've been around quite a while, and I'd say that you are not acting impartially as a Wikipedia mediator should.

As I said, rather than leave it with this hanging over its head, delete all references to it through out Wikipedia and Wikimedia unless your colleagues don't agree with you. RobinColclough (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment below regarding your potential conflict of interest regarding the edits you made on OWN TV. The same goes for this article since it says that "The software is being developed by an independent team of C++ software engineers lead by Robin Colclough", and again you should not be writing about your own company. w.carter-Talk 17:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the veracity of the information was the important factor, now you tell me that people involved may not comment, I didn't know that, but can that be true? I have edited several wiki pages that do not relate to my own work, and I have written about two subjects that do, but in these cases, the information I have provided is verifiable, and I have provided independent references to back it up. I mean in the case of OWNTV, I own the trademark, and I provided a link to the official trademark organization, so where is the problem? I am more concerned that Wikipedia is letting the rich and powerful stamp all over people and even erase references to the official trademark owner. Both the USPTO and the European Union TMO granted me the rights to the mark OWNTV, and now Oprah Winfrey wants it, and is using it for her O.W.N. TV channel as if these organisations and the process of democratic and fair registration does not apply to her, and you are supporting her! Amazing! Listen, you people run Wikipedia as a collective, so just do what you all think correct. RobinColclough (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OWN TV

Please stop adding your trademark to the page, as you did here. WP:DISAMBIGUATION says that disambiguation pages (such as OWN TV) should only contain links to other relevant Wikipedia pages. In fact, the section WP:DABREF explicitly says "Don't include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World Wide Web. To note URLs that might be helpful in the future, include them on the talk page." Joseph2302 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the comment above, your edits have said that "OWNTV" is a registered trademark belonging to Robin Christopher Colclough" and since your user name is RobinColclough I suspect that you are the same person. Adding content about your own company is very strongly discouraged since you have a conflict of interest and are not considered a neutral person as far as your trademark is concerned. Please do not add the text again. w.carter-Talk 17:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I own the OWNTV trademark, and I provided a link to the official trademark organization, so where is the problem? I am more concerned that Wikipedia is letting the rich and powerful stamp all over people and even erase references to the official trademark owner. Both the USPTO and the European Union TMO granted me the rights to the mark OWNTV, and now Oprah Winfrey wants it, and is using it for her O.W.N. TV channel as if these organisations and the process of democratic and fair registration does not apply to her, and you are supporting her and her business. If Wikipedia continues to erase all references to my trademark, and supports the illegal use of the trademark by Corus Entertainment/Harpo Inc., I will take legal advice because it seems grossly unfair to allow a third party to use someone elses trademark, not even allowing them a mention. RobinColclough (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point in this whole conversation is that the Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, Facebook or any other site where you can add whatever info you want about things, it is an Encyclopedia. It works in exactly the same way as Encyclopedia Britannica or some other large work. And as such everything in it should be added by independent and neutral parties and the facts must be supported texts in other independent sources. That is the only way the facts in the Wikipedia remain trustworthy. It is almost impossible to write about a company or trademark you own (or yourself) in a neutral and non-promotional tone. That is why the Wikipedia so strongly object to it. Just think about it: Would you, yourself, trust the facts you read in the Wikipedia about say the Fox Broadcasting Company if you knew that Rupert Murdoch had written it himself? Would you not prefer that some independent party took a very skeptical look at the organization before writing the entry about it?

If your company, trademark or you is noted, someone will, in time, write about it. A subject gets noted when other sources: newspapers, websites, magazines, journals, etc. write about it. It is not noted just because the owner of it says so. So every fact must be supported by such texts, preferably several of them. As for the entry about OWN TV: Oprah's network has been written about in several publications and editors here picked up those facts and put together an article about it. If your trademark and company is mentioned in the same way in other publications, an article about it/them may be created here.

Also the page where you have added the your OWN TV entry, is a kind of page that redirects to articles when more than one share the same name. There are lots of such pages here, see for example the page: Roma. All the entries there leads to other articles in the Wikipedia. So adding your trademark there was just like trying to get it into the Encyclopedia Britannica by adding it to the Table of Contents or Index there. I hope you can see past your anger and understand the fault in that at least. IF someone else had found sources about your OWN TV and written an article about it, then a link to that article could have been placed there. Best, w.carter-Talk 08:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I did some searching to see if there was enough coverage online to be found, so that I might put together an article about your OWNTV since I am an independent party and genuinely interested in creating good articles for the Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the only times I could find the name mentioned was in the context "not to be confused with OWN TV" and that is not enough notability for an article here. Let's hope your business will flourish and in time gain some other notability. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 09:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean. There is the Oprah Winfrey Network, i.e. O.W.N., who have blatently represented themselves using the word "OWNTV" without periods "." between the letters and with a space so small its not noticeable. Oprah's enormously profitable TV show has thereby commandeered the word mark "OWNTV" for their own use stamping all over my right to use it, which I registered in 2006. Oprah doesn't need to use "OWNTV" whereas I do, in my context it is not an acronym, it has meaning related to "Own" as in "your own", and TV, i.e. OwnTV, and services offered related to people having their own TV. Oprah could have called her business "The Oprah Show" or "Oprah TV", or even "O.W.N. Show" etc., I however, having paid to register this word mark, having printed promotional pens, bags, a website www.owntv.com, a facebook page OWNTV, etc., am now truly ruined by Oprah Winfrey's blatant disregard for international trademarks. Does anyone follow that, that we all have a right to register a trademark, and that should be respected, and not ignored just because someone is big enough to walk all over your plans, big enough not to worry about litigation. If you want to find out about OWNTV, then visit www.owntv.com. This business has the idea that everyone could have their own TV channel at very low cost that runs automatically using software which is currently part of ongoing development, based on the ViewPoint-3D and Viva3D engine. As I have said, if you don't like it, just delete all my entries. Of course I won't feel good about Wikipedia, but then again, I don't imagine you care. RobinColclough (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we care! Editors who understand how the system of writing articles here works are always welcome. And believe it or not I do sympathize with someone who is being trampled by a big company, otherwise I would not be trying to help you out. But the Wikipedia is not the place to fight such battles, and we could really do without such tantrums as you display at the end of your previous post. Please try to keep a contructive tone and things have a much better chance of being resolved to everyone's liking.

You seem to be missing the whole point about "neutral and unbiased sources". The company's own website, facebook, pens, bags etc. are not such sources. If you can provide links to where some newspapers, media websites (other than your own), magazines or journals have written about your company, I will be more than happy to give it a go. I expect that you have a better chance of finding these than I do, since I am quite confident you are keeping tabs on all things written about your company. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You care by implying that I don't understand the Wiki rules, then by say I'm fighting the battle against Oprah here in Wiki when all I ask is recognition of my legally registered trademark "OWNTV" rather than have Wiki reinforce the unfair and unreasonable use of OWNTV by Oprah's big business? You call that fair, rally? My startup business which I put all my life savings into, is being flooded with emails (because I also registered owntv.com and Facebook OwnTV) and messages from Oprah's fans because she's taken to using my registered brand, and her attorney basically tells me "so what!". Wikipedia is meant to be IMPARTIAL, and that means including the facts, all the facts, and not deleting repeatedly the hard FACT that OWNTV is a registered trademark.

I tell you what, if you voice the opinion of Wikipedia writers then I want nothing to do with Wikipedia ever again, and from this point you can stop posting more messages. Adios! RobinColclough (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A very pleasant day to you too. Good Bye, w.carter-Talk 12:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the contact for Wikipedia's legal representative?RobinColclough (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the page Wikipedia:Libel there is an email link for legal issues. I also apologize for posting here again although you told me not to. w.carter-Talk 13:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, found it, no apology needed. RobinColclough (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...in addition

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SageGreenRider (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the big problem here? Wikipedia shouldn't allow people to use registered trademarks you know.RobinColclough (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do I care, I think not. Wikipedia is being controlled by idiots IMHO. :) RobinColclough (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We think equally highly of you. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.viewpoint-3d.com/media/ViewPoint3D%20Customer%20Review%2001.pdf

[1] ttp://www.viewpoint-3d.com/media/ViewPoint3D%20Customer%20Review%2001.pdf

[1]