Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:23, 17 September 2007

Mousepad received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

1

Plagiarism of the invention of the mousepad ought to not be pushed by the Misplaced Pages supervisors continued

Armando M. Fernandez invented, named and documented the mousepad.

unsigned comment added by 68.164.234.82 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks removed. They are not tolerated here. --Sigma 7 03:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Navou seems to be a new admin here, who thinks that a few days of protection might lead to progress in resolving a content dispute. He is probably not aware of the year of history (see archives of this talk page) in which Armando, via dynamic IP address, has been trying to lay claim to more credit than the references verify. What's needed is a semi-protect, so that the various editors who care about verifiabiliy and other wikipedia policies can continue to improve the article, while Armando can be restrained (of course, he can still participate by making an account if he wants to, but the last time he did that his behavior on various articles got himself blocked). Dicklyon 14:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How about a protect on the side of no plagiarism for a change? You always seem to control admin so when the protect is placed it always locks the article in a state of "high plagiarism" as it is locked at the present time.

Mr. Fernandez's IP reference shows that he invented, named and documented the first mousepad. It shows it in such a way that Kelly's plagiarism, which you are pushing here on wikipedia, can't even dream to get close to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.104.107 (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the content dispute, Armando claims that his 1979 disclosure from Xerox supports him as the person who invented and named the mousepad. The naming part is absurd, since that document does not mention anything like the term mousepad. The invention part is also a bit absurd, since such disclosures generally mean that the company has not seen fit to treat the invention proposal as novel enough or valuable enough to file a patent on, and the USPTO has never examined it for novelty. Evidence is cited that the concept of a mousepad may have been around earlier than that. We are not in a position at this late date to know much more than that, so we just say what the sources claim or support. Dicklyon 14:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is evidently loaded with false assumptions. The reference shows that Mr. Fernandez invented, named and documented the first mousepad. This template must be substituted.

If you follow the reference in question, it only shows the name being used on the design of the mousepad. It does not state that this is the first one - which is a simple requirement to fufill. --Sigma 7 03:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference is a published invention proposal. It was not meant to place a first claim. Had the corporation proceeded with a pantent or returned it to Mr. Fernandez, then it would have had a chance to undergo a full test of firstness by the patent examiners. However, because it was not allowed to undergo the full process, Mr. Fernandez is only left with the test of "time will tell the truth." The truth is that, after about 30 years elapsed, besides Mr. Fernandez, Kelly is the only other claimant on earth and Kelly has never shown factually that he invented the mousepad; except, through plagiaristic statements and through conjecture promoted by Pang on his website; additionally, promoted by Pang on American Heritage website; further, promoted by Kelly or an unknow person at the Herman Miller website, also, by way of conjecture and plagiarism. The factual evidence shows that Kelly simply designed a dual tray console for Mr. Englebart as an employee of Herman Miller. The truth that time has told is that Kelly has no evidence whatsoever of having invented the mousepad later in 1969. The truth is that Pang has decided to continue pushing Kelly's plagiarism and conjecture on the invention of the mousepad, regardles of his own contradiction. Thereby, in a defence response and due to lack of any factual evidence from anyone else, including Kelly, Mr. Fernandez has the full right to claim that he is the first to invent, first to name and first to document the mousepad. It is all shown in the reference in the content of the Xerox 1979 Invention Proposal publication. Additionally the 1979 publication is the only factual source of evidence that has shown the first invention of the mousepad anywhere and that publication credits Mr. Fernandez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.133.80 (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Mr. Fernandez has the right to assert his claim to be the first to invent and name the mousepad. However, wikipedia is not the place for asserting personal claims. By policy, we only include what is verifiable by reliable sources, and the source says nothing about invention or naming. Dicklyon 05:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you readily accept sources which show plagiarism and conjecture as adequate for wikipedia such as the stated references and readily reject legal documentary reliable invention proposal evidence that even shows the intended patent classifications, both international patent classification and USA paten classification. My question then is what is wikipedia's standard for what is a verifiable reliable source? Thus far, plagiarism and conjecture sources seem to be the acceptable sources. Something wrong with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.133.80 (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you read the criteria for reliable sources at WP:RS and then comment on the sources based on that framework, instead of commenting on what other editors "readily accept" or "readily reject", which are not accurate characterizations of what's going on here. Dicklyon 16:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You are conflicting yourself now dicklyon. At this late date you clearly stated, in a previous statement, that Mr. Dough Englebart conversed with you. His position was to the effect of what was made was not a mousepad it was rather a "mouse tray". Mr. Englebart managed and guided the whole mouse project. Mr. Englebart is unquestionably the person who invented the mouse, as I understand it. Thus, we are in a position to know more. And that more has already been said. That which has been said shows that Kelly's claim is nothing else than plagiarism. That which has been said also shows that the statements made here by those who make false attribution to Kelly as the inventor are wrong. That which has been said also shows that Mr. Armando M. Fernandez was the first to invent the mousepad and also to name it and to document it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.104.107 (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Doug recalled a tray and not a pad. Isn't that pretty much what the article says is shown in his video? We have no way of knowing more specifically about Kelly's claim; accusing him of claiming credit for something he didn't do seems like an unjustified stretch based on Doug's memory, and certainly unjustified based on verifiable soruces. He may just be stretching the terminology a bit, referring to the place designed for the mouse to operate as a pad (seems reasonable).

As to your invention and naming, I couldn't find any words to that effect in the cited Xerox disclosure. You have never provided any more beyond the words I quoted from there, which appeared to be the entire contents of that document. Dicklyon 15:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

By "plagiarism" I think Armando means giving credit for the invention to someone who might have designed one before he did. But he prefers to make it personal, about the editors involved, rather than about the content. He's been up to it for over a year, and it does get tiring; he should read WP:NPA.

Dicklyon 14:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Another misassumption from you Dicklyon. Look up PLAGIARISM even here on wikipedia and you will see that you are twisting standardized definitions. Plagiarism is claiming or giving credit by-or-to someone who did not invent, create or do the thing. In other words a false claim or false attribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.104.107 (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It says "the practice of falsely claiming, or implying, original authorship or of incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement," which I can't see that anyone has done here. Dicklyon 15:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is being done here on behalf of Kelly when the Kelly's constituency pushes Kelly's plagiarism and Pang's conjecture here in wikipedia.

Given your citation of NPA I have nothing more I feel I can add to your greatly restrained comments. GDallimore (Talk) 16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't add because you do not have anything to add. Except, more plagiarism pushing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.104.107 (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dick - yeah, it looks like the Mousepad lock was actually Navou's first admin action. I had been gone with my move over the last week, and returned to see the Daily Return of Manny there, so figured I'd ask for a long-term semi (I was thinking 3mos, maybe 6). Instead I got a short-term full. I've asked why, but I think Anonymous Dissident will grant the long-term after this expires, as they seem to see the need for it, if it doesn't get changed earlier. --Thespian 22:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thespian seems to assume that admin will finally lock it again in a state of "high plagiarism" as most have done all of the time on the order of dicklyon. What if admin decides to lock the article in a state of no plagiarism, or leaves it open for continued editing until the state of final truth? Maybe dicklyon, SWITCHERCAT, Gdallimore, kelly and Pang will get a heart attack.

Misuse and abuse of power. That's what you people are doing. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You have a constituency of people who have decided to push plagiarism of the mousepad, led by dicklyon and SWITCHERCAT, and because you have the power to do so, you missuse and abuse that power. There is no evidence whatsoever that Kelly invented the mousepad and you know it. Yet you choose to push his plagiarism here on wikipedia, just because you have the power to do so. You not only push his plagiarims here on wikipedia but you also make up false statements, half truths and half pictures to help Kelly push his plagiarism here on wikipedia. That is corruption! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.134.177 (talk • contribs)

Pang's support for Kelly is based only on opinion and also loaded with misassumptions and without any evidencial facts. Kelly's claim is also unevidenced.

Armando, the job of wikipedia editors is to report what is in reliable sources, and to cite those sources. Those of us who are editors (not admins) have no more power than you have. Why not make yourself an account and try to learn to be a productive contributor to wikipedia instead of just pushing your own WP:COI? Dicklyon 20:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I have just opened an RFC on the issue concerning the inventor of the mousepad. There is one editor that contests who invented the mousepad, with this addition. However, the following information is still uncited:

• "This is contradictory" doesn't indicate or elaborate on the contradiction.
• The claim that the term mousepad wasn't popular before the 1979 release, and was only made popular afterwards.
• "According to Dick Lyon" doesn't have a reference. Also, such a reference needs to be from a mainstream article.
• Pang's support based on conjecture isn't cited or referenced.
• The mousepad design by Armando M. Fernandez, although is the first to be documented, is being claimed to be the first. However, this is in conflict with two other referenced in the article from mainstream articles stating that Jack Kelley was the inventor. Just because he designed a mousepad doesn't mean that it was the first one.

As you know, Misplaced Pages requires most additions to be Attributed to a reliable source. If the content cannot be verified, or if it is original research, it will be removed. --Sigma 7 18:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For a year or so I have been reverting Armando's assertions that he invented and named the mousepad. I'll defer to others to examine the cited source and anything else they can find to see if I've made a mistake in this. Dicklyon 02:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I see two sources saying that Kelley invented the mousepad in 1969, and one that says Fernandez's employer documented it ten years later. What sources are there (other than arguments on this page) that Fernandez invented it? Sheffield Steel_stalk 03:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources are from the World Wide Web which came about either late in the 1980's or in the 1990's, more likely in the mid 1990's. This is long after Mr. Fernandez invented, named and documented the mousepad. The sources are a result of Kelly's plagiarism activity after the mousepad had become popular and Kelly decided to stake a claim on that which was not his. The RFC WILL PROVE that Kelly was no more than a plagiarism claimant and that Mr. Fernandez was the first to invent the mousepad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.234.82 (talk • contribs)

Do you have an independant source that claims plagiarism? If you do, post it. Also, if you read the RFC in question, I asked for citations for the statements in the bulleted list - if you can't provide a citation for them, then the statements have no business being on Misplaced Pages. --Sigma 7 04:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For plagiarism "false attribution" to Kelly see sixth paragraph down on page: http://www.hermanmiller.com/CDA/SSA/Designer/0,,a10-c80-b14,00.html

For one of Pang's conjectures due to a couple of short communicated exchanges of plagiarism and conjecture between Pang and Kelly on the mousepad see third paragraph down:

http://askpang.typepad.com/relevant_history/2002/12/information_spa.html

For a second of Pang's conjectures pushing of Kelly's plagiarism and false attribution to Kelly, see second paragraph down:

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2002/3/2002_3_48.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.133.80 (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For a third ref insisting on pushing of Kelly's plagiarism and conjecture by Pang see five paragraphs down:

http://askpang.typepad.com/relevant_history/2002/12/information_spa.html

I asked for a source that claims plagiarism, not a list of pages that you believe contain or push plagiarism. Simply using those links tells readers that Jack Kelley was the inventor, and gives no information otherwise. Please review WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:SNOW. These four guidelines and policies cover exactly what is required for including content on Misplaced Pages - claims such as the ones you made must be sourced properly rather than simply making an accusation.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories have a better chance of meeting Misplaced Pages's guidelines. They can do so because they include at least some referneces (e.g. interviews, statements, etc.) that give minimal support. At the very least, you could try examining how those comspiracy theories get made. --Sigma 7 07:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can't see the conjecture and plagiarism in those pages, then show me the facts on those pages. The fact is that there are no evidential facts on those pages supporting Kelly, only conjecture and plagiarism. Seems like you have not read them yet. Further, it is not my belief, those pages do contain plagiarims and conjecture. I recommend you go back to the dictionary and lookup plagiarism and conjecture, or look it up here in wikipedia. Try www.dictionary.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.133.80 (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, according to the test for conjecture, as presently stated here in wikipedia for conjecture, Mr. Fernandez's published Invention Proposal by Xerox is the counterexample which shows that Kellys claim is a false claim. The test of conjecture also shows that Pang's conjectures are false conjectures. Further, the statements from Dicklyon, GDallimore and Thespian here in wikipedia is an additional false conjecture as the statements are based on false conjectures and plagiarism by Kelly.

SIGMA 7, your relegating the references to a 9/11 conspiracy theory will not cut it here. For you to make a reasonable argument you will need to read it and analize it in light of the standards for deciding the truth or falseness of a conjecture. And you ought to not be pushing false conjecture here in wikipedia. Pang's conjectures are false and Kelly's claim is nothing less than plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.133.80 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the sources are unreliable as the sources have published plagiarism and false conjecture on the mousepad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.133.80 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any, Sheffield; but an RfC is useless for this purpose; the statements have been reverted over and over again, but the anonymous IP editor known to be Fernandez doesn't actually understand what's needed; he has his truthiness. We could RfC this 'til the cows come home, and the problem editor is going to keep up the anon editing. --Thespian 20:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The RFC is the smartest thing ever requested on this site when compared to the plagiarism and conjecture pushing in wikipedia by the Kelly, Pang, Lyon, Switchercat, and cohorts constituency. The RFC WILL PROVE that Kelly was no more than a plagiarism claimant, that Pang's support for Kelly is nothing but conjecture which he fabricated from the plagiarism which Kelly fed him. The RFC, further, will prove that Mr. Fernandez was the first to invent the mousepad and that Kelly was a plagiarist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.234.82 (talk • contribs)

Are you thinking someone will bring some new evidence to support your claims? That would be a good result, if so. Somehow, I doubt it. Dicklyon 16:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, lay off the personal attacks. This is not a forum for attacking other editors simply because they contest your citations (if any). --Sigma 7 04:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No attacks, only defence statements. Defence statements to show that the editors are blindly pushing Kelly's plagiarism and Pang's conjecture on wikipedia while blatantly blocking, distorting and denying Mr. Fernandez his undisputable claim to being the first to invent the mousepad, first to name it and first to document it as evidenced the the Xerox Invention Proposal disclosure publishing. The Kelly's console is not a mousepad and neither are the two holding trays in the console. Even Dick Lyon, the person who placed the statement on wikipedia agrees with that. Yet the wikipedia constituency against Mr. Fernandez continues to push Kelly's plagiarism by editing the article and the console picture to make it look like a mousepad which it is not. The wikipedia constituency contradicts itself with the second statement which pushes Kelly's plagiarism into further error. "Stating that it was invented a year later in 1969." In essence one year after the console with the two trays was made for the mouse introduction show. There is no factual evidence of Kelly inventing a mousepad in 1969 anywhere on earth! except, two conjecture statement made by Pang one in the American Herritage site and second in Pang's own website. The third site, the Herman Miller site, is also stated conjecture as there is no factual evidence whatsoever. Should Kelly have provided factual evidence to state his claim about having invented it in 1969, a year later, then Mr. Fernandez would have no case in claiming to be the first to invent, name and document the mousepad. However, Mr. Fernandez has undisputable factual evidence of his creative work (see Xerox publication) when compared to Kelly, he has none whatsoever. He has been using the Console with two trays made to show the mouse in the movie in combination with having invented the mouse a year later, for which there is no evidence, no fact and is all fabricated conjecture leading to his blatant plagiarism. Blatant plagiarism and conjectures which is being blatantly pushed here in wikipedia by the anti-Fernandez wikipedia constituency. Thus, the attacks are being made by the wikipedia constituency and not by the defenders of Mr. Fernandez as inventor, namer and documenter of the mousepad. The only factual evidence shown thus far is that which support Mr. Fernandez's claim fully as referenced in the Xerox published document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.237.250 (talk • contribs)

Fernando, focusing on the motives of the other editors is personal, and your characterizations of them are attacks. If you want to question the current article content more productively, you can focus on the reliability of the sources, and their content, rather than on the other editors. I agree with you that the interpretation of the video may be questionable, and that the Kelly and Pang statements may be questionable; not because they are conjecture or plagiarism, but because maybe the sources can't be deemed "reliable" enough; that's the line you should focus on instead of distracting by attacking the editors. However, even if those statements were removed, we have no basis for saying that you either invented or named the mousepad; the Xerox Disclosure Journal item does not claim or support either of those, as far as I can tell by reading it. It supports the fact that you made one and claimed it as an invention; that's all; it does not ever refer to it as a mouse pad, nor did Xerox follow up in a way that suggests they believed it was sufficiently novel or valuable to apply for a patent on it. Your claims and Kelly's claims are of about equal status; worth mentioning what the sources say, but far from enough to state an inventor. Dicklyon 17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you would assess the value of legal doumentary evidence which would stand before a court of law as undeniable undisputable evidence as having the same status value as plagiarism and conjecture published on WWW pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.133.80 (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the second RfC on this article. I was introduced to it as a result of the first, and much of the text at the beginning of the history section was rewritten by me in an attempt to represent the sources as accurately as possible, thus avoiding objection from all but the most POV-pushing editor. There's still work to be done, here, but this RfC is unlikely to produce anything better without more reliable sources. GDallimore (Talk) 20:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you seem to have done so very well. You have represented conjecture and plagiarism of the mousepad very well. As a matter of fact, you refined it by pushing a cutting and pasting of a picture of the console to make it look more plagiaristic and pushed the invented one year later in 1969 to make it more more conjectured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.237.250 (talk • contribs)

Actually, a second RFC can be helpful even if there is no progress on the content of the article. It can identify the contested issue at hand, and ensure that the appropriate wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:V) is brought again to the surface so that other editors will know what to look for in the article. If necessary, it can then be used on further escalation, if necessary. --Sigma 7 04:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of a disclosure statement

I wanted to make something clear in my recent edit about disclosure statements. When a company issues a disclosure, it is not to secure their rights to the invention in any way, it is to make the idea public. This ensures that nobody else can subsequently get a patent on the same product, but indicates that the company making the disclosure has no intention of applying for a patent themselves.

The implication is normally (although this would be OR and therefore can't go in the article) that the disclosed product was not considered sufficiently new or inventive to be worthwhile pursuing a patent for. It is also possible that the Xerox did not think that the product would be worth protecting even if it was new and inventive.

Whatever the reason for the disclosure statement, we do not know what it was and cannot make guesses within the article. GDallimore (Talk) 20:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting pro-corporate opinion and anti-individual inventor opinion you have below. You seem to intentionally leave out the fact of the right to invention form issued by corporations as a precondition for hiring an individual into a corporation. In that form corporations take over the rights of inventors, EXCEPT IN CALIFORNIA (USA). Thus in California, when an inventor has an invention, s/he, has the options of (1) not tell the corporation and apply for patent as an individual and retain all rights to the invention; (2) allowing the corporation to take over the invention and patenting it, therefore, the inventor gets a patent with the costs of the patent finaced by the corporation--here the inventor looses all rights and benefits to profits from the invention;(3)request the corporation for a release of rights to the invention back to inventor so inventor can negotiate and profit as an individual from his/her invention. However, corporations attempt to kill all three possibilities against the individual inventor when they instead choose to publish the invention proposal in a disclosure statement. An additional secondary benefit to the corporation is blocking others from attaining a patent on the invention, thus, in a future time should the invention become popular, as the Mousepad did, they can still have full access to the rights to the invention and implement it into their products without having to pay royalties to the inventor. Thus, when a company issues a disclosure, it indeed is to secure their rights to the invention with the additional benefit of not paying for the cost of attaining a patent, as happened with the Mousepad. There seems to be something illegal about this in the USA, state of California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.218.42 (talk • contribs)

Interesting thesis, Armando. I take you feel that Xerox screwed you, then, right? I've been in California and companies and IP law for a few decades myself, and never heard of anything like you describe. Dicklyon 06:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Optical mouse reference

I'm contesting a reference shown in the article, inserted here and later linked to a scanned copy. A couple of glances within the article doesn't show anything about mousepads, and I suspect that the article might not be related to the statement at hand. If the reference can't be confirmed (either providing a page number or a quotation), I am suggesting it be removed. --Sigma 7 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

See p.21, last paragraph in the short section titled "Design Goals," which says "...most users of ball mice use a special pad anyway to increase the friction on the ball." Dicklyon 03:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I see it. I strongly suggest adding the page number for that reference, as a single quote like that is easy to miss. --Sigma 7 02:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Dicklyon 03:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Book ref for Jack Kelley

Milestones in Computer Science and Information Technology, by Edwin D. Reilly, 2003, says "The first such pad was 'invented' by Jack Kelley, who went on to become a noted designer of furniture. He probably got it from one of the sources we already cite, so it's not really much of a confirmation. It's not clear what he intended by putting "invented" in quotes. Dicklyon 05:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the quotation marks indicate that he is repeated a quotation, or perhaps that he doesn't think the mouse pad is much of an invention. Luckily, it's not our job to solve that riddle. Either way, it's a source. Good find! Sheffield Steel_stalk 13:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP Concerns with posts by User:69.3.133.80

Sigma 7 said: "I asked for a source that claims plagiarism, not a list of pages that you believe contain or push plagiarism." This quote hits the nail on the head. I don't think that User:69.3.133.80 sees any difference between his own opinions and the truth. This would not be a problem in itself, but User:69.3.133.80 has repeatedly made accusations of plagiarism without citing any source.

Assuming Kelley is still alive, and since internet sources (and a book) link his name with the invention of the mouse pad, I think there is a good chance that people who might have contact with Kelley may come to this article, and potentially also read the discussion on the Talk page.

WP:BLP says:

• Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages.
• These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages.

Sigma 7 has asked for, and has not received, a source for the claim of plagiarism. Therefore I am removing this material from this Talk page immediately, and if it reappears, we may have to take the matter to WP:BLPN. Sheffield Steel_stalk 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review