User talk:Robert.d.thompson
...I'm inclined to look into this further[edit]
By all means please do. Please note that coming to Wikipedia and accusing other editors of being Microsoft shills isn't the best way to start.
In the meantime, I left a comment on the Talk:Virtual folder talk page. Also you might like to read WP:CIVIL. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
November 2009[edit]
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)- More info at the related discussion on WP:ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Reminder[edit]
In this edit you imply that material posted on wikipedia should be considered confidential. When material is submitted to Wikipedia, the poster "irrevocably agrees to release contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL" and is no longer confidential. Toddst1 (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Robert.d.thompson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was not aware of the Policy you mention, therefore, I apologize for the mistake of wanting it confidential. I simply thought it was a personal dialog. My incorrect action has been noted by me. In regards to Legal Threats, first of all, please forgive me for being stressed out after a 10 year long legal battle with Microsoft, where near the end I discovered my Attorney has Familial Interests with Mr. Steven Baller, CEO of the Defense in Thompson v Microsoft, Microsoft Corporation. My intention in mentioning that I have contacts with the Obama Administration was not a threat to sue Wikipedia, I had that contact established for the purposes of my Attorney Grievance and them looking into the relationship not revealed to me but discovered by me, between my attorney and Mr. Ballmer. Believe me, I don't want any part in a lawsuit again after what my eyes have seen, and 10 years of my life down the drain, not to mention the years I spent after College designing the SmartFolder concept beginning as early as 1988 with something called Black Box Objects in the Actor OOPS environment, which I later changed to SmartFolders for use in OLE and Apple's Publish & Subscribe and CORBA. But as my attorney, again who I will be filing a Michigan State Bar Grievance Against, as he as attempted all manner of action to get evidence I have of him writing a Check to a Company and a Receipt, which is of material manner to his dishonesty with me, beyond the relationship with Ballmer, is someone who has opened my eyes to serious corruption amongst some colluding attorneys. Regarding Wikipedia, I'm, for example, reading a book on Complexity Theory and the author mention that she references Wikipedia and the people that often try to malign Wikipedia; when I read that I agreed with her (that Wikipedia is a great resource). I use Wikipedia constantly and if you have records you can see this. My concern, again, from what my eyes have seen that I cannot discuss regarding Microsoft, is any possible influence by Microsoft Corporation primarily. I can do nothing about the patent. I got screwed and I've learned a lesson I'll teach my children one day. But I do want to set the record straight as to the origins of the Virtual Folder, which I have 10 years of patent forensics analysis with. I delved through thousands of pages of discovery documents using OCR and a Methodical approach to their integrity and discovered such serious information as I was the instrument by which I won my 1st action against Microsoft's 1st motion to dismiss. The patents and MSDN material, I can prove in whatever manner you would accept, that a Virtual Folder is Microsoft's attempt to rename what was called a Smart Folder by me. In fact, Apple uses the name Smart Folder as of 2005, first for an unrelated to me INTEL patent for optimizing search results, but then with updates in Folder Actions, are sharing in a Patent Portfolio with Microsoft Corporation to achieve the Smart Folder process. The term Virtual Folder was used by all MSDN Microsoft and Microsoft certified contributing editors. All those articles, which are public, go on to explain the IShellFolder interface, I can provide these, whereby you can obtain independent copies of the MSDN articles. The IShellFolder interface is simply a name change from IShellContainer. If you read the patent introduction you can see where Microsoft is using subtle manner, for which I have confidential information on that I cannot discuss, that leads to the notion of a Virtual Folder and IShellContainer. I would appreciate a second chance. That's why after my longer posts, I began to digress into smaller posts to try and make it an easier validation process. I would appreciate you accepting my apology. I am designing an entirely new SmartFolders concept at SmartFolders.com, but I want to close this past chapter in my life (which is 20 years now) by setting a verifiable record straight. Regards, Robert D. Thompson
Decline reason:
For the reasons I've discussed below, I think this block is appropriate. This explanation is long and difficult to read, so if I've misunderstood it in any substantial way, after you've read the policies and guidelines I indicated, please feel to ask for a review by a different administrator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
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.
That's a lot of information, and I'm not sure I understand all of it, but if I follow your logic, it is:
- You invented the Smart Folder, but aren't getting credit for it.
- You sued Microsoft over it, but your lawsuit was unsuccessful, and you still aren't getting credit for the Smart Folder.
- Because your lawsuit was unsuccessful, you'd like to get credit for the Smart Folder by adding information about this to Wikipedia instead. (WP:SOAPBOX)
- Your goal is to get credit for Smart Folder; you aren't particularly interested in Wikipedia other than that (WP:COI)
- Your creation of Smart Folder has never been written about in newspapers, magazines, or published books (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N)
You might notice links after some of these points; the links are to Wikipedia policies that I think you're breaking with your edits. I hope they are helpful to you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Robert.d.thompson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Regarding your first point, The word "credit" could mean 2 things: Wanting to enforce Patent rights, which I am not trying to do, or Second, wanting to cite specific articles of Historical Fact about me showing SmartFolders for the launch of Windows NT in 1993 at Microsoft's "Partners in Innovation" booth by exclusive invitation; that, I have cited 2 articles from the Patent which make this clear, and there are additional articles. Recording your second point, "You sued Microsoft over it, but your lawsuit was unsuccessful..." I'm not sure what he means by "unsuccessful" but it was settled out of court, actually my attorney threatened not to continue when I found out about the Ballmer relationship; this is what the Michigan Grievance Board will have to look into and I have all the facts I need. Regarding your 3rd point "Because your lawsuit was unsuccessful..." This is not true; I am embarking on a new SmartFolders project at SmartFolders.com, as I began to in 1999 until I discovered the Patent when searching to ensure I could use the Trademark SmartFolders, and can use SmartFolders.com, but during the course of USPTO searching I also found the patents by INTEL, and 2 by Microsoft, the 2 by Microsoft, directly related to and filed 1 year and 1 day after the "Partners in Innovation" event, the other 2 prior arts had no such relationship; I explain below quite clearly that I've used Wikipedia for Mathematics and Emergence/Complexity Theory and other research for years now; this leads me to believe he has not read my request to unblock. Regarding your 4th point, "Your goal is to get credit for Smart Folder; you aren't particularly interested in Wikipedia other than that (WP:COI)" This is where I have to choose my words carefully, as the slightest challenge to some Editors, depending on their personality, can be interpreted almost as if I were a common man challenging a King; I am not trying to force anybody to do anything and I'm not interested in a Civil Lawsuit as Toddst implied; I'm just trying to contribute factual and verifiable evidence to make sure the Historical Record is clear. Regarding your last point, "Your creation of Smart Folder has never been written about in newspapers, magazines, or published books (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N)" This is untrue. Again, this leads me to believe he has not read the Talk record of my rejected edits, because I make it quite clear again and again the articles. Two of them from the patent, specifically, are, Press Release: Business Wire, "SmartFolders(TM) Brings NT Power to the Masses of Windows 3.1 Users Now", Atlanta, GA, May 26, 1993. Press Release "Object Productivity Showcases SmartFolder(TM) Technology in Microsoft's Partners in Innovation Booth at Windows World '93", Atlanta, GA, May 24, 1993.." << that is directly from the USPTO records.
Decline reason:
Your request to be unblocked does not give a reason why you should be unblocked, other that to allow you to continue to pursue an external matter, which is clearly an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
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.
Robert.d.thompson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason, as I have stated, is to provide verifiable informations on the origins of the Virtual Folder concept. That, as I understand it, is of direct relevance to the definition. There is no external matter outstanding as related to the definition. You are continuing to refuse to allow me the opportunity to set the factual record straight on the origins of the term Virtual Folder. Please provide me a direct link to how to go to the Arbitration process, if there cannot be any rational discuss between us on the purpose that I began to edit this definition in the first place.
Decline reason:
This does not address the reason for your block, which is making legal threats. Sandstein 17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
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.
Robert.d.thompson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What Legal threat did I make to Wikipedia specifically? I asked if Microsoft has made any public donations during the time Wikipedia was asking for them that may be influencing the decision for me to be allowed to make the record of this entry more accurate. You seem to be finding every reason for preventing it. I did not threaten to file any lawsuit against Wikipedia whatsoever, and in fact, an Editor referenced a Civil Proceeding that has nothing to do with the words I have used. What words have I used that make a specific legal threat to Wikipedia?
Decline reason:
The edit MuZemike links to below reads very much as though you either intend to pursue legal action against Wikipedia if your edits are not included, or at the very least you are involving Wikipedia in an external legal dispute. As has been explained above, Wikipedia is not a battleground from which you can stage your fight against Microsoft et al. If your sole intention here is to use Wikipedia for the advancement of your legal dispute, then you are on the wrong website, and need to take your concerns elsewhere. If you wish to contribute in other manners, then you can be unblocked, provided you unambiguously and irrevocably agree to keep Wikipedia out of this dispute and avoid editing this area henceforth. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
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.
Per [1]:
WITHOUT ACCUSATION, I must tell you I have a direct contact in the Obama Administration regarding a Federal Attorney I have a contact for who can look into this independently if a Rational Debate is refused for a Company receiving Public Funds, POSSIBLY, from Microsoft Corp. and/or Apple Computer.
and
Therefore, I insist, respectfully, you include this communication to Your Senior Editors or to the Controlling Supervisor(s), or ultimately to Wikipedia Management and/or Legal.
Especially that first quote, it looks like a rather clear threat to take legal action to me. MuZemike 20:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Robert.d.thompson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yes, I do agree to keep Wikipedia out of any dispute, even though my legal battles are long overwith. I don't have any action intended or pending against anyone, not even a legal action against my Attorney nobody. And I do agree to your stated terms above to abide by Wikipedia Terms of Use. I'm sorry if I raised a red flag by talking too much about the Grievance against my attorney, which is not a legal issue related at all and I should not have brought it up, I was just trying to explain. A Grievance is just to state that your attorney did not reveal a Conflict of Interest he should have. I have no legal ground left anyway, so it's impossible for me to pursue any actions against anyone. If you kindly choose to reinstate me, I will try to add my content as briefly as possible and with only records that you can obtain via public records. It's worth noting I should probably just give the Newswire Press Releases and a Screenshot of my application instead of referring to the Patents as I think that has contributed to the notion of perceiving that I intend to pursue action which I am not, cannot, and don't wish to go through that again. I just want to clear things up. I can actually clear up Microsoft's usage also through reference to what are called Name-Space-Extensions, which are called Virtual Folders in MSDN documentation for Windows 95 and later, and internally they called them something I cannot say because I'm under obligation not to reveal the wording of the documents they produced in the case, so I won't discuss those, only public material. I appreciate any chance you consider to re-instate me and try this in baby-steps again, and with verifiable info. Regards.
Decline reason:
I am sorry that you seem to be very far away from understanding our system here. You have dropped your legal threat, but you do not seem to have any intention to improve the content of Wikipedia in a general way. You still want to use Wikipedia as a platform to get vindicated regarding your invention. Since this discussion has continued for a long time and you are not yet on the same page with us, the next admin may close down the unblock discussion and protect the page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
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.
- If I understand you correctly, you're agreeing to half of the requested conditions: if unblocked, you will refrain from making legal threats or statements which could be interpreted as legal threats, but you will not refrain from writing about yourself and your connection to Smart Folder/ Virtual Folder. Correct? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
{unblock|I said in my previous post that if I wanted to make factual the historical record, that I would not include the patent references as that is what appears to be causing the interpretation by editors that I am somehow try to Vindicate myself. Even when I provided Newswire Press Release verified information, which I can send you via e-mail and you can find it easily on Lexis-Nexis, you will see that, that is not vindication at all, but a simple historical fact that SmartFolders was released in 1993 and I simply want the Virtual Folder definition to include Object Organizer as one of the early applications that included Virtual Folders. I keep getting the same response back, that I'm trying to vindicate, or that I'm trying to do something that I am telling you that I'm not trying to do. Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to accurately reflect a Historical record based on verifiable information? That is all I'm asking for. To participate in, a fresh start if you will, of putting into place a Historical Record of fact. Do you want me to put it on another page? Perhaps that might help. I see no page for Smart_Folders. Google searches bring up Virtual Folder for Smart Folders. If that's what you need me to do then I'll do it. If an Editor closes this thread, I politely ask that you refer me to the Arbitration Editors so they can review that I'm doing my sincere best to cooperate.}}
- Your request for unblocking has now been reviewed by four different administrators, who have all told you the same thing: I do not think that a fifth review of your request will be a productive use of administrator time, so I'm disabling this talk page. To try to say it one more way: there is no correct way to write about yourself on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)