User talk:Smartmo

I'm a business analyst in Business Intelligence department in European telco company.

TALK: Hi Smartmo,

please don't waste my time by edit warring on the N9 page. We can discuss this on its discussion page. Martin.uecker (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi anonymous,

Well, the anonymous one is you.

I'm not anonymous, all my edits are under my account. Anonymous is someone on IP e.g. 169.229.120.137 or 128.32.171.202

please don't waste my time by edit warring on the N9 page. Don't insert unverifiable bullshits about market share of N9's. There no serious information about "good" N9 sales. I have very good information from Nokia in one country where N9 was introduced, and know that sales was very terrible. . Once reliable source about N9 sales is Canalys based on original research, which present about 0.6milions sales of N9's.

Unfortunately, they get the Lumia sales wrong in the same sentence. See below.

Canalys Lumia sales coresponds with Nokia interim report and IDC research.

Other sources are speculative:

http://www.osnews.com/story/25569/Nokia_N9_Outselling_Lumia_/ - it is not original information, it is only reprinted information of speculation of Tomi Ahonen (well known fanboy and enemy of Nokia and MS joint.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/2/prweb9210845.htm - it is not original "research", it is only "opinion" of one uninteresting company.

http://www.meltemiblog.com/2012/01/n9-vs-lumia-sales-numbers-in-q4.html - it's very funny speculation of unknow boy - unusable

http://www.slashgear.com/nokia-silent-on-n9-sales-as-meego-kept-out-of-spotlight-26210826/ - there is no information about N9 good sales.

Please don't insert your personal speculation to N9 page.

These are not mine speculation. In the article, they are represented as "unofficial estimates". As such, I don't see what is factual incorrect on the N9 page.

On the N9 page is not space for all unofficial speculations, plese use only official reports.

Use only official Nokia press releases, or press releases of well known analytical companies as Gartner, IDC, Canalyst, and so on.

"Because of a modest launch and not being directly sold in most of the largest smartphone markets such as the USA, Canada, UK, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and others, " - it is verifiable fact, do you understand?

"Nokia's N9 model sales are not reported in official Nokia reports or Gartner or IDC reports. " - it is verifiable fact, do you understand?

This does not have a reference. So, no, this is your interpretation that it is not listed "because of a modest launch". More likely to me, the reason is that it is a single cell phone and a declared-dead platform and they don't bother.

Yes, you are right, there no reference for "because of...", it will be corrected

"According to trustworthy analyst company Canalys estimated 0.6 million shipments of the N9 to end of last quarter of 2011 and estimated the combined deliveries of the comparable Lumia devices to 1.2 million in the last quarter of 2011." it is verifiable fact, do you understand?

Well, it is speculation on the side of Canalys, which agree would be slightly more trustworty than above sources. Unfortunately, the statement is false. 1.2 million Lumias can not be true, if they sold "well above 1 million" only until Jan 26. And the later is no speculation, because it is a statement from Nokia.

It is not speculation, it is original research of Canalys. Canalys is trustworthy worldwide analytics company, in telco market is fully comparable with Gartner, IDC, Kantar, ComScore or Strategy Analytics. Make difference between research of these companies and other personal or local speculative articles.The statement (1.2 million Lumias) is estimate, but is credible, there no reason for your personal mark "can not be true". Nokia self reported "well over 1 million Lumia devices to date" in Q4 report presented on Jan 26. OK, it is not clear if it is only for Q4, or also for some part of January, presented "to date" can be interpreted as "as known to date" or "shipped to date", but the second is not possible. Nokia is worldwide company with many stores, there not possible to know real "to date" sales, there is about one week reporting delay, also the interim reports must be approved by Board, it's additional few days. Technically is possible to be included sales only of first week of January, but typically in first or two weeks in the New year are no sales and no shipments. But, ok independently on it, Nokia reported "well over 1 million", it is not exactly 1.0 million, it also not slightly over (like as 1.1 million), "well over" it is maybe about 1.5 million, or maybe between 1.2 and 1.6 million devices. It is what we know to Jan 26. But one week later (Feb 3) Canalys, trustworthy worldwide company with good connections to Nokia a Microsoft (both are customers of Canalys), presented more precise numbers, 1.2 millions Lumias in Q4. It is correspond with Nokia numbers. What's more, the formulation "Despite a disappointing set of financial results, Nokia’s smart phone performance in the fourth quarter gave cause for optimism. It shipped 19.6 million smart phones, ... The total was helped by 1.2 million and 0.6 million shipments of its Windows Phone and MeeGo-based products respectively...", it sounds very clearly, not as speculation, but as fact. The numbers of Nokia and Canalys also corresponds with IDC shipments numbers, Canalys presented 2,5 millions of WP devices, IDC presented about 2.4 millions (there can be some rounding error, because is calculated from percentage number). Also next numbers from IDC pointing to low N9 sales, Nokia shipped 19.6 millions smartphones (in Nokia a Canalys reports), which consist about of 18.3 millions Symbian smartphones (in IDC reports), well over 1 million (in Nokia report) or 1.2million (in Canalyst report) Lumias, and 0.3 or 0.1 million N9 devices. Also, I work in telco company in country where N9 was introduced in Q4, and I have good information from local Nokia store, I have information, despite big marketing Christmas support for N9, there are terrible sales, no one (except few me fans and geeks) want buy phone with no future. In result N9 sales in Q4 should by between 0.1 and 0.6 miLlions, but ok, only trustworthy source is Canalyst with 0.6 millions N9 in Q4.

Well, you might well be right, but this is all just your speculation and selectivly picking numbers. Nokia itself confirmed that the "well above 1 million" refers to Jan 26. If they really have sold as much already in Q4, why did they not put this as such in their report? If they already sold 1.2 million in the 6 weeks the Lumias are on the market in Q4, it would also be a bit strange that have only sold "well above 1 million" by end of January and only a bit more than 2 million in Q1. So the Canalys number seems questionable. I also could not find a reference to the 18.3 million Symbian number from IDC? And other analysts have reported slightly different numbers, so this is also not a strong argument, but you picking numbers. Then you deleted four different sources claiming that the N9 might have outsold the Lumias in Q4. While those souces might be speculating, selectivly deciding that the Canalys number must be true on the rest are wrong seems a bit one sided.

Update: Canalys has 18,3 Symbian shipments reported in their table, is this your source? What is also wrong with you reasoning is that Symbian might also have been sold by other vendors. If one assumes there have been 18,3 million Symbian sold only by Nokia, then Canalys numbers don't even add up: 18,3 + 1,2 + 0,6 not equal 19,6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.uecker (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is my speculation based on all available numbers related to N9. But Canalys report is not speculation. Why Nokia insert this number to report, I don't know, but Nokia never report exactly numbers on this detail level. There is nowhere reported "well above 1 million" by end of January. Sold 1.2 million Lumias in six weeks of Christmas period, comparable to 2 millions Lumias in weak Q1 period is possible. Numbers 18.3 millions of Symbinan is from IDC (see Mobile Operating systems wiki page for reference, it is recalculated from percentage number, and also same numbers is reported by Canalyst. Other Analytic company reported slightly another number, because reported something else (Canalys and IDC reporting "shipments" (more precise), Gartner reporting "sold to end users" (more meaningful)). There no research of analytics company where N9 soldout Lumias, all links are speculation (see above), and are referenced to one source (Tomi Ahonnen speculation). Canalys is worldwide big analytic company with good reputation, it is comparable with IDC and Gartner (and also Kantar, ComScore or Strategy Analytics), and it is not comparable with "One men show" of Tomi Ahonen fan. Yes 18,3 + 1,2 + 0,6 not equal 19,6, because of I speculating Q4 sales is between 0.1 and 0.6, and also there can be some insignificant number of non-Nokia Symbian phones (e.g. SE). But, well I’m respecting only official number (0,6) from Canalys.

Thanks Smartmo

We should move the discussion the the talk page of N9, where I documented my reasoning and the actions. I am not opposed to changes and I am not interested to misrepresent the facts. In fact, I originally changed the Canalys statement to this form. Originally, it said 1.2 million N9's and 600000 Lumias, which is not what the press release says. I later removed it, because it seems to contradict Nokia's numbers. If you disagree, I am happy to discuss it (on N9's talk) and we can find a solution Martin.uecker (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that you wrote on my user page. Please don't do that! There is a talk page for each user and for each article. If you want to discuss something, please use those pages. Let me know if you need help. Martin.uecker (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N9 talk page is very funny, thank you, but no.

You should clearly read up about wikipedia policies. I am not going to discuss this further on your talk page. Martin.uecker (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is nice, but don't waste my time by editing this page about this fact.

Talkback

Hello, Smartmo. You have new messages at Talk:HTML5 video.
Message added 06:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mobile_operating_system#Market_share charts update

I have seen you made the charts at Mobile_operating_system#Market_share.

Are you going to update them with the new data?

What software did you use?

I am thinking to change them to Template:Line chart as they are easier to change. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.49.202 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes, I will update tomorow (i'm too busy today). I'm used MS Excel where I have also detailed source data and some calculation. Is possible to change to Linechart, but it is not so nice, and for me is more difficult. For me is more easy, update chart in excel and paste to wiki. But I can share part of my source Excel.

The lines of your charts continue with dots into the future, but I do not know where these dots come from. Please, remove the dots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.150.221 (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dots are coming from IDC predictions for year 2012 as is mentioned in chart description. I can remove soon.

Hi smartmo, regarding abovementioned chart and projections, unless I misunderstand what you are charting, it seems that Gartner actuals for 2012Q3 are now available at http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=2237315 and they're a little more in line with past trends than those projections are. You might update it when you can. Thanks, David F (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

¨

Hi David, Yes 2012Q3 actuals by Gartner are is charts, 2012Q4 projections is based on IDC forecast, I will update when IDC will publish new forecast (or I delete them unless there is a new forecast by IDC soon).

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkmartin (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't edit-war

Hi! I notice that you have repeatedly reverted other users at Mobile operating system. You might not know it, but Wikipedia has a rule against doing this. If other users disagree with you, you should stop and discuss your desired edits on the talk page, and only make the edits once consensus is reached. People who revert more than three times in 24 hours are blocked from editing. You can read the rules at No edit warring and the three-revert rule. Don't worry; Wikipedia has no deadline. If you are right, you will be able to explain it clearly, and others will agree with you. If you are wrong, you'll want to understand why you are wrong, because you wouldn't want your error to be part of the encyclopedia anyway. Either way, a calm discussion, without reverting others, helps everyone stay calm and friendly as they work the question out. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not repeatedly reverted other users!!!!! Other user repeatedly reverted me!!!!!!!!!!--Smartmo (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your comments

You can sign a post by typing ~~~~. Will you start signing your comments, please? A conversation is confusing if people don't know who is talking, and I am getting a little bored with adding your signatures for you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is not signed. Will you please start signing your edits? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is not signed. When your block expires, please start signing your posts; I know you'll want to participate correctly in talk page discussions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Mobile operating system. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you tried to evade this block by logging out and editing as User:89.24.18.128, I have extended this block from 31 hours to one week. Please, accept that you are blocked, and do not try to edit any more until your block expires. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only want answer to your incorrect blocking. Another user violated 3RR conditions and you blocked me. --Smartmo (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please sign the above comment? This is a good time for you to learn how to sign a comment. Then we can talk about your other concern. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what next?--Smartmo (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I looked at the edit history, and I don't see anyone besides you who violated 3RR. Which user reverted more than three times? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to quickly interject, I think it's important to note to Smartmo that the 3RR applies to people reverting three times in a 24-hour period, just in case s/he was confusing what it means (and thereby, perhaps erroneously accusing others of breaking 3RR). – Richard BB 16:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I think it's possible that User:Smartmo is so convinced of her own rightness that she hasn't actually read the rules yet. I'm hoping that she will take the time to read rules and observe others in discussion during this block, and coming back better prepared to be useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm read 3RR, but again, I'm not reverted other users, other users reverted me more then 3 times, please track this article for some months back.--Smartmo (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Wide_Smartphone_Sales_Share.png - Davidkmartin 4 times reverted my own work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Wide_Smartphone_Sales_Share.png - Davidkmartin 4 times reverted my own work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Wide_Smartphone_Startup_Share.png - Davidkmartin 3 times reverted my own work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system - unknown user (propably Davidkmartin) more then 3 times reverted my contribution--Smartmo (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your comments to the bottom of the page. It's confusing to put comments in the middle of the page; how can anyone understand a conversation that is out of order? I am reviewing your links now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are the same image. User:Davidkmartin did not revert your work four times in 24 hours. The second is a different image. He didn't revert you there four times in 24 hours, either. The third is Mobile operating system. You are accusing User:Davidkmartin of breaking the rules by logging out to edit. Do you have any evidence to support that accusation? Is it possible that more than one person disagrees with your interpretation of the rules? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, correct first link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Wide_Smartphone_Sales.png It is not maybe in 24h period, but I'm not requesting to block another user, I argue that I'm not reverted other users but other users reverted me, I'm not violated 3RR. Another questions is if somebody disagrees with my contribution (which is there updated by me for some months) can use talk page, but not revert my work.--Smartmo (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now you've made an unblock request which is demonstrably false. I give up. If you want to, read the rules, and understand them, and do better in the future. If you can't understand them or can't follow them, you won't be able to avoid being blocked again, but by lying in your unblock request, you lost access to my help. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm updating content of Wikipedia for some months I hope correctly and for the benefit. OK, if you not want to contribute to Wikipedia, I do not have. I will stop use Wikipedia --Smartmo (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Smartmo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not repeatedly reverted other users! Other user repeatedly reverted me!--Smartmo (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It takes two to tango: if you've been repeatedly reverted it means that you've edit warred to repeatedly restore your preferred version, right? Max Semenik (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yes and No, I repeatedly reverted of revert of other users and every time invited to discussion on talk page.--Smartmo (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC) My contribution comes form credibly source (IDC), and is replaced by other users by their rumors.--Smartmo (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of a revert is still a revert, and being right does not give you right to edit war. Max Semenik (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is your point of view. I'm sure, I'm not violated with 3RR, see WP:NOT3RR. But don't want continue contribute and donate to Wikipedia, please delete my account. Bye. --Smartmo (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No part of NOT3RR applies to you. Your edits were edit warring. NOT3RR only applies to obvious vandalism, illegal content, and other such things. Also, you cannot delete your account. It must remain. – Richard BB 15:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard BB, who are you? Why inserting this comment? I do not care about your personal opinion. Sure, I not violated with 3RR. I only deleted lies on this page. Please read Wikipedia policy. --Smartmo (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the editors who was looking after the article that you edit warred at. This isn't my personal opinion: it is fact. I'm well versed in Wikipedia policy, and I know that your edits broke 3RR and were not in accordance with NOT3RR. – Richard BB 16:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is your personal opinion, not fact. But I still not understand why you writing on my talk page. I don't want talk with you.

No, it is fact that you were edit warring. There is no debate about this. – Richard BB 17:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, It is your personal opinion, not fact. But I still not understand why you writing on my talk page. You are not editor on any relevant page. I don't want talk with you. Please go out.

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Mobile operating system".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:

It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:

Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:World_Wide_Smartphone_Startup_Share.png

This is a talk page for your image. Please respond to the question on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.231.132 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Smartmo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]