User talk:Tharel

October 2016

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

Tharel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I was blocked for, will not do it again, and will make productive contributions.

In regards to the two problems you stated: "Your username indicates that the account represents a business": this is correct and due to my lack of acquaintance with the Wikipedia policy. I am not an employee of OzVision. If I were trying to promote the company, I would not have made such a gross mistake. I would like to fix it if I may. --Tharel (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC) "The account has been used for advertising or promotion": this is not correct. The account was not used for promotion. I wrote the article from a neutral point of view. There is no praise for the company and I have followed carefully the language and style of articles such as IBM and Microsoft. I wrote the article because it is a notable addition in the field of technological innovation, because video surveillance is such a major technology and because there are no Wikipedia articles (to the best of my knowledge) that explain the development of video surveillance. I have carefully avoided making statements that may be construed as a promotion, even though they are true. For example, that OzVision was the first company to develop technology for transferring video over telephone lines (and to be awarded a US patent in this field). Instead, I wrote that this and other technologies contributed to making video technology more accessible.

If you think the content looks like a promotion, I would be happy to learn which parts and to fix them. I would like to contribute additional articles in the future. Thank you.

Accept reason:

Unblocked as per the discussion and agreement below. Yamla (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"OzVision was the first company to develop technology for transferring video over telephone lines" How can this be true? OzVision wasn't founded until 1995. I used video over telephone lines in 1990, and Videoconferencing indicates digital telephony was implemented in the 80s. Note this doesn't fundamentally alter your unblock request, it's just a concern I have about a small section of it. --Yamla (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You're right. You had videophones and video conferencing over POTS lines from the mid-1990s, and towards the late 1990s the use widened due to compression and broadband internet. But not for video surveillance: it was impossible because of the huge amount of data that needed to be transferred. What OzVision did was develop a video compression algorithm that was useful specifically for video surveillance (because it took into account a fixed camera background). It enabled to start transferring gigabytes and later terabytes of data through the internet over telephone lines. This was a first, and it changed video conferencing making it much more accessible. Taking it out of the hands of security companies to the hands of the users. You didn't need dedicated coaxial cables anymore, you didn't need control cetners - you could view the live feed from anywhere, you could store the video on cloud. In 1995 only rich organizations could deploy video surveillance. Today anyone can buy a camera and set a surveillance system in five minutes.

I see now that I didn't write this point clearly in the article. I'll fix it.

Thank you.

Please sign talk page posts with ~~~~ to put your sig and the time stamp on. Thanks. Your use of words like 'leveraged' and 'focus' certainly suggest to me that there is PR influence or editing here. No-one outside PR uses 'leverage' normally unless referring to an engineering matter ('ability to use a lever to move something' in the physical sense). Peridon (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an old marketing schmuck who's been doing it for decades, I often leverage my vocabulary to focus the customer on what I'm trying to sell, which kind of proves Peridon's point, that this is dripping in market-speak. I have no evidence, but I would bet money Mr. Ozvision1 has an undisclosed conflict of interest of some type. The hyperbole is just too thick for it not to be true. "First" (not they weren't), "patents" (we're innovators!), and just the style. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

break

@Peridon, Yamla, and Dennis Brown: First I'll answer Yamla: I don't see your full reply. Where is it? I only have the part I got through the email.

I am not on the OzVision payroll. Please look at my LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/talharel. You will see I am a marketing consultant and you will also see that I have a Masters degree from Limburg University in Economics of innovation. Hence the interest.

I know the company because I've worked with them in the past (2014) but I chose them for my first (and calamitous) foray into Wikipedia because they made a contribution that in my opinion is substantial. I approached them to get their permission and ask to receive a company email - first mistake, gave myself the name Ozvision1 to denote this article - second mistake.

To answer Dennis: Please see my Linkedin page. I am a marketing consultant, hence the language. I am a Ms. not a Mr. and I was following, verbatim, the style of other company articles I came across: IBM, Microsoft, Kaltura, Ironsource and many other high-tech companies, both Israeli and others. And I did not write the word "first" not once in the article.

One lat thing: I submitted my article for review because I need guidance, not bashing. Can we please address the article itself? If you think the granted patent does not show that they produced innovative compression algorithms that enabled a wider use of the video surveillance - please let me know. If you think the path the company followed does not reflect the advance of the video surveillance field - then please let me know.

Thank you. --Ozvision1 (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick word from an observer. You specifically say you are not on the OzVision payroll, but you don't actually say whether you currently have any commercial or financial connection with the company other than that (unless I've missed it). As you have worked with them in the past, I think it would be beneficial if you could clarify this, and clearly state whether you have any commercial or financial connection of any nature with the company. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zebedee and Dennis Brown: Zebedee: OK, this is the whole gescheft: I helped OzVision build their website in 2014. For this I got paid and that's how I know the company. Other than that I do not have any financial or commercial connection with them. I am friendly with the CEO, I helped him with two PRs last year and helped his HR manager start writing on social media to attract workers. All pro bono. The CEO doesn't believe in it and they don't have the budget. But he agreed to let me write the Wikipedia page. I hope he doesn't regret it.

What Boing said. And declaring any COI on your user page would be required (just as I have done on my talk page). I'm not against possibly unblocking you, but you would have to agree to stay away from company and product articles for 500 good edits / 3 months and get up to speed. And drop the market-speak. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis: I agree, no prob. Market-speak: do you mean in the article itself? Can you please point me to it so I can fix it? If someone to tell me what to fix or point me to articles that are good examples, because as I said before: I was emulating the language of articles on other High-Tech companies.

TXS --Ozvision1 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed your account. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight and PhilKnight:

Hi, thank you. Does this mean I can try to rewrite the article? I am also asking an editor for help on this so I don't make any mistakes. The last thing I want is someone thinking that I'm using the new account to circumvent the old one. TXS --Tharel19 (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije:, @Dennis Brown:, this user has agreed to refrain from editing company or product articles for 500 good edits/3 months, and has agreed to declare their COI on their user page. As such, I think they are probably a good candidate for unblocking. What say you? --Yamla (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at every detail, but as long as they understand the limitations and expectations, I don't have an objection. It is easy for a new user to run afoul of the COI policy, I get that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown, Yamla, and Vanjagenije: Thank you! I want to be sure: "for 500 good edits" - what does that mean? Also, if for example I want to contribute to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSaaS, should I also refrain for three months? --Tharel (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"For 500 good edits" means 500 edits without any warnings and especially without any blocks. As VSaaS is about Cloud Video Surveillance and you have a conflict-of-interest around that, you'd probably want to avoid editing that directly at any point, though WP:COI is a bit less straight-forward than that. But specifically suring your "500 good edits/3 months" restriction, you'd be agreeing to avoid editing pages like that as that is a "company or product article". --Yamla (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK got it. So I'm touching any of these in the foreseeable future.

--Tharel (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije:, I propose unblocking this user based on the above. You are the blocking admin. Any objections? --Yamla (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, fell free to unblock. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]