TomNault

Welcome! Here, have some cookies.

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, TomNault. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to 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! Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Exotics at Redmond Town Center (April 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 333-blue was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Exotics at Redmond Town Center and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

333-blue 05:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! TomNault, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 333-blue 05:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do at this point. A simple Google search comes up with hundreds of references to Exotics at Redmond Town Center, it's talked about in dozens of forums, hundreds of pages and somehow the sources I submitted are not reliable? I don't know which website submission would be adequately reliable under your guidelines? How big does the event have to get? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomNault (talk • contribs) 06:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! And some discussion about conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi TomNault. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Based on your username and your edits to date, you appear to actually be Tom Nault and have a controlling interest in Open interface North America and Exotics at Redmond Town Center. If you are not Tom, you are impersonating him via your username, which is against our policies here).

One thing I spend a lot of time, is getting new editors who appear to have an unmanaged COI oriented to how this place works. If you are Tom I reckon you are super busy so I will make this as efficient as possible, but it is something we need to do.

To clarify why -- Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it.

Nobody wins if Wikipedia gets filled with promotional content, because nobody will read it anymore.

As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you have a clear financial conflict of interest, some things you need to do). What I would like to do is walk you through COI management here, and then help you get more oriented to how Wikipedia actually works, so that the time you spend here can be productive for you and for the community.

COI management first....

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. First things first - would you please clarify your relationship with the real world Tom Nault? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way... Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that.

Also, please do reply here, just below this. I have your Talk page on my watchlist, so I will see it. Thx. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope I got this right and thank you for responding. Yes, I am Tom Nault, and I shouldn't be the only contributor to the Open Interface site, I have contributed to some edits of facts. We had to make some changes due to NDAs currently in place. I believe someone at Qualcomm has done some editing as well. I have contributed to the Lamborghini site, and I too am a very, very strong believer in the integrity of Wikipedia and I don't want to get any facts in error. Since I and a friend started E@RTC, I wanted to get all the data as accurate as possible to start with. I understand bias concerns, but we're not a commercial enterprise. I'm also not sure which sources to draw on. Because it's an all volunteer group we're spread a bit thin and don't really go out to seek publicity. I'd love to continue to be a meaningful and factual contributor and I'm also willing to get verifiable sources. I've never tried to do a page about me, as this is not about me. I very much appreciate your feedback and let me know what I can do to contribute. Your comments were helpful. I've also never used software like this so I'm reading and learning what I can.TomNault (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reply. Yes the interface really... sucks, and there is nothing we (the editing community) can do about it - it is run by the Wikimedia Foundation which runs the servers and the software on top of which all this happens. So.. I will do what I can to help you figure it out, but my sense is you are pretty software savvy, so it won't be a huge challenge for you. Just some learning.

Thanks too for resolving the username issue. OK, so the way COI works here in Wikipedia, you have COI for these nonprofits just as you would if they were nonprofits. (Just as an aside, some of the most difficult editors I have tried to work with have been from the nonprofit side, who come here to write about the great work they are doing and just cannot see how it could be problematic since they are "good guys", if you know what I mean.) COI is just a subset of the larger problems we have with what we call "advocacy editors" who come here with a really strong point of view (for instance, they are vegetarians and believe that eating meat is evil and add non-neutral, and generally badly sourced or unsourced or content about the glories of vegetarianism and the evils of meat and factory farming. Somebody who comes here to write about their awesome product or how great they themselves are, write the same kind of kind of content - it is content we care about at the end of the day).

I am really grateful that you understand the issues and I don't anticipate these kinds of problems with you at all. But we do consider that you have COI for these organizations; you have a fiduciary responsibility to them, and you really want to see them thrive in the real world. That is the outside "interest" that creates a conflict with your obligations to Wikipedia as an editor here.

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:TomNault - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I work with Conenza, Dashlight, LLC, Exotics at Redmond Town Center, and Open interface North America and and have a conflict of interest with regard to those topics" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about the company (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is what I call "peer review". This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes (which is exactly what you have done with the article you created!); and b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself and disclosure your COI when you propose it, there on the Talk page. Just simple and transparent.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want).

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on any article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. And if you want me to quickly go over the content policies, I can do that. Just let me know. (It would save you a lot of time so I hope you do) Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This all makes perfect sense and I will make those notes. I think the Open Interface page was edited heavily in the past- I don't think it was my edits. I will put something down about where I have conflicts. I also watch prior posts from years ago to see if anyone challenges the data, as accuracy is important to me, and I've double checked sources in the past. I didn't want to come off as advocating anything with regard to E@RTC and wanted to just put down facts about the event, including key misconceptions. I'll start by adding my basic bio information, something very brief, to address COI issues. I care very much about the integrity of this site and couldn't agree more. I use it as a reference all the time and accuracy of data is very important to me. Any specific help on the page would be very much appreciatedTomNault (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Great. I will have a look at the Open Interface article - I hear you on the involvement of other editors with a COI. I will leave you with one last and overly long burst of text in a moment, that should help you get grounded in how Wikipedia works, and then you will be off to the races. There will be stuff in there to help you with the new article you are trying to create as well. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

How this place works

OK, so I would like to get you oriented to how Wikipedia works, and give you some advice about creating the article you want to make on Exotics in Redmond. There are some non-intuitive things about editing here, that I can zip through ~pretty~ quickly....

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers encyclopedia articles that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via loads of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". (There is a whole forest of things, in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus. ) And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in Wikipedia space. There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines

• WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing and the bar against using Wikipedia for promotion)
• WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
• WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
• WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health
• WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
• WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically about articles about living people. We are very careful about these articles (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
• WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X that have substantial discussion about it, with which to build a decent article. I reckon this will be of special interest to you.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are:

• WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
• WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
• WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
• WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
• WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it. If you cannot, then use one of the methods here to get wider input. There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
• WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or your draft article: Draft talk:Exotics at Redmond Town Center.

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.

SO... Anytime you want to create an article, here is what to do.

1. look for independent sources that comply with WP:MEDRS for anything related to health, and WP:RS for everything else, that give serious discussion to the topic, not just passing mentions. Start with great sources.
2. Look at the sources you found, and see if you have enough per WP:Golden rule to even go forward. If you don't, you can stop right there. If you are unsure, ask somebody!
3. Read the sources you found, and identify the main and minor themes to guide you with regard to WP:WEIGHT - be wary of distortions in weight due to WP:RECENTISM
4. Go look at manual of style guideline created by the relevant WikiProject, to guide the sectioning and other style matters (you can look at articles on similar topics but be ginger b/c WP has lots of bad content) - create an outline. (For example, for biographies, the relevant project is WP:WikiProject Biography; for organizations, there is WP:WikiProject Organizations - their article advice is here or WP:WikiProject Companies - their article advice is here). We have a WP:WikiProject Festivals but it is not too active.
5. Create the article in draft space. Create the talk page, and disclose your COI there.
6. Start writing the body, based only on what is in the sources you have, and source each sentence as you go.
7. Make sure you write in neutral language.
8. When you are done, write the lead and add infobox, external links, categories, etc
9. Consider adding banners to the Talk page, joining the draft article to relevant Wikiprojects, which will help attract editors who are interested and knowledgeable to help work on the article.
10. The completed work should have nothing unsourced (because the sources drove everything you wrote, not prior knowledge or personal experiences or what the client wanted; there is no original research nor WP:PROMO in it.
11. Submit your article for review via the WP:AFC process - again I can help there if you like. You will get responses from reviewers, and you can work with them to do whatever is needed to get the article ready to be published.

There you go! Let me know if you have questions about any of that Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help Jytdog, I've read your instructions and I thought that's what I was doing when I wrote the article. Can you give me some initial hints about what's missing so I can get it right? I wrote it to just be factual with no opinion, just hard data. We never saw this as a place to market E@RTC, so it was never an intention, other than to just nail down the what, where, when and why. I tried to keep it as dry as a white paper, however a big part of the challenge is that I'm the best source of data. As an example, when we talk about car count, we actually count the cars with a counter. When we talk about spectators, those numbers come from Redmond Town Center as gathered by their security team. The cars we mention are heavily photographed at the event. A Ferrari 250 GTO was there yesterday. The DBR2 was there opening day. All were photographed extensively. My other source for things like the Parking Thugs, is found on our website, but that too becomes suspect, if I'm reading the standards correctly, so I'm not sure if I should just track down someone else to write this, or not. You are right, I don't have a huge amount of time to devote to this. I was just trying to contribute something where I have the most factual knowledge. Even reporters in the past, typically circle back to me or my co-founder, so I'm still not sure how to specifically fix this.TomNault (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I have you feedback on the Draft Talk page. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much Jytdog. I do have better sourcing, but some of it is older, including Seattle Times. We originally thought of ourselves as a local event however we're constantly getting mail and inquiries from all over the world. We were always a bit publicity shy because we had collectors driving $50 million dollar + Ferrari GTOs on their own wheels (we have three in the area) and not roping them off either. We thought that was cool, so we tried to suppress the press about the event so they would still come out. Eventually, the bigger collectors who have a lot of logistics issues to contend with moving cars from their collections, with full time crews, wanted to make sure there was an audience before they spent big dollars to get these cars to the show. The old 1920s races cars take special fuel, etc. It became kind of a chicken and egg issue. We're now at a size where the event is settled in. It still grows every year, but we don't have to fight to sustain an identity. I'll work on this over the next few days and see if I can get it up to standards. Lots of photos out there if you're interested. :) Thanks again for all your time. Tom TomNault (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Exotics at Redmond Town Center

<REDACT>

Thanks for helping me. I'm new to this and I'm really trying hard to get it right.TomNault (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

<REDACT>

I read that prior to my attempt at a subject. I've been a reluctant participant to contribute for that reason, even when I have first hand expert knowledge on a topic. I think preserving the integrity and I rely on credible information here myself. I usually only added something in the past when the "facts" were in error. There is so much written about E@RTC as it is; thousands of forum pages, dozens of videos on YouTube, etc., yet, meeting the definition to just put down the basics about the event is a challenge. Still, I appreciate all the help I can get to getting something done, even if it comes down to a sentence.TomNault (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Tom, that user is a person who was blocked from editing Wikipedia and decided for some reason to interfere with my COI work here. It's not a good thing as they are using you - using you - as a tool to "get me." It's really destructive and they have no interest in helping you, per se. This person may show up here under several different names and is already making Wikipedia uglier for you, and more confusing, than it should be. Sorry about that; it's not normal. But Wikipedia attracts weirdos Jytdog (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

On the Exotics at Redmond Town Center side, again to avoid COI issues, I've pulled together this list, leaving out anything that has a personal connection to anyone at E@RTC. I've included some national blogs, etc. If someone could help with this, it would be much appreciated. Again, I'm more than happy to provide the links. For E@RTC they are as follows: http://experienceredmond.com/events/Exotics-RTC-2015/ http://autocontentexp.com/homegrown-car-shows-exotics-at-redmond-town-center Addressing that this is not a local issue: http://oppositelock.kinja.com/my-seattle-trip-part-2-exotics-at-redmond-town-center-560260833 https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/teslas-at-exotics-at-redmond-town-center-saturdays.15097 https://vimeo.com/43166707 http://www.seattlejagclub.org/index.php/latest-articles/articles/143-exotics-at-redmond-town-center-general-meeting http://classicroad.com/?p=3657 http://www.kingscrossautomotive.com/exotics-redmond-town-center/ Seattle Times- there is more.TomNault (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC) http://www.seattletimes.com/business/this-bugatti-veyron-vitesse-is-a-blast-to-drive/ http://blog.nwautos.com/2015/04/a_look_at_opening_day_of_2015_exotics_at_redmond_town_center.html#http://blog.nwautos.com/w-5-surhmani-thukral2.jpg http://www.theautoreporter.com/exotics-at-redmond-town-center-are-a-go/ http://rennlist.com/forums/991/818918-exotics-at-redmond-town-center.html http://pugetexposure.blogspot.com/2014/04/no-260-exotics-at-redmond-town-center.html http://egarage.co/events/exotics-at-redmond-town-center/ http://gtspirit.com/2013/03/16/exotics-at-redmond-town-center-9th-march-2013/TomNault (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC) I have about a dozen more that also have facts about the event, however one of them is rejected by Wikipedia, so I can't just cut and paste the dozen here.TomNault (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Open Interface article

The issue I'm finding with Wikipedia is that too often, reporters who often get their facts slightly wrong are given more weight than the source itself. As in the case in Brier Dudley's work at the Seattle Times. He's written both about E@RTC and about OINA, which is where we first met. Furthermore, there are now more errors on the OINA page as the transition flow between OINA and Qualcomm as written now isn't exactly right either. I've always avoided the press for this very reason. As just one small example, Brier refers to E@RTC as a monthly event. We've never ever, ever been a monthly event, but I can't correct that under COI standards and I'm the co-founder!TomNault (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that much of what I and I'm guessing other employees put in as facts on the OINA page, I've taken the time to pull up the web links for just OINA+UWB. The links contain press data, some in the form of press releases that are more accurate than the derivative works that come from the releases. They are as follows:

1. http://everything.explained.today/Open_Interface_North_America/
2. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20061221005721/en/Open-Interface-North-America-Demonstrate-Industry-Bluetooth
3. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20060105005360/en/Open-Interface-Alereon-Demonstrate-480-Mbps-Bluetooth
4. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/01/prweb328656.htm
5. http://www.chron.com/news/article/BW-Alereon-to-Demonstrate-WUSB-Bluetooth-1873749.php
6. http://phys.org/news/2005-10-freescale-industry-combined-bluetooth-uwb.html
7. http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3595031/Bluetooth+Sig+Selects+WiMedias+UWB.htm
8. http://www.google.com/patents/US20070011335
9. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2164573,00.asp
10. http://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html
11. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS172973+24-Jun-2008+MW20080624

Much of what you stripped out is “verified” in this article here.

1. http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:CSR.L&display=discussion&id=3651340&action=detail
2. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20071002005342/en/Sony-Selects-Open-Interface-North-Americas-BLUEmagic
3. http://mundogeo.com/en/blog/2007/10/04/sony-selects-open-interface-north-america’s-bluemagic-3-0-for-its-pnds/

I would be happy to add this back in as it was, however given the COI issues, if someone else could help it would be appreciated. There is a lot more as I can probably find press for every line on that page and it's been almost ten years. I just want to make sure it's correct. I'm happy to do the research if someone wants to add the copy and footnotes. The former employees are very proud of the long list of industry firsts they created, not as a selling point, but as a matter of technical pride. Technologists don't want their work forgotten.TomNault (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. As I wrote above, everything in Wikipedia starts with reliable sources. Going through the ones you brought above

1. This is a copy of the old Wikipedia article. See WP:CIRCULAR
2. This is a press release
3. This is a press release
4. This is a press release
5. This is a press release
6. This is a press release (this is what physorg does
7. This is a press release, (this is what internetnews does
8. Patent applications are considered self published sources (like press releases)
9. PCmag is OK,, is focused on SoundAbout Lossless
10. apple list of trademarks; Article already says that Apple used OINA's products
11. market research report index page. Unclear what content you would want to source from this.

Out of the second set.

1. OK, is focused on SoundAbout Lossless
2. press release
3. press release

I had seen everyone of those sources. I had thought about including some content about SoundAbout Lossless based on the PCmag and the EE Times piece.

Please don't cite policy in scare quotes. Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog I just read the edits to the Open Interface North America page and now it's a big mess and you've edited the facts completely backwards, even with data from your own references. Starting with the first reference you site- Akemi worked for Open Interface Japan, which formed in 1992. I don't recall when she went to work for OIJP, but I think it was 98. She formed the OINA, through OI Japan (OIJP) as an American division of OIJP in 2000. It says so in the article you reference. It was not technically a "spinout" because it had outside investors. That's a technical term that this was not. Brier was being careless. This was a new division that OIJP owned in part with other Japanese shareholders, such as ITX, Diamond Capital, etc., and about four or five other shareholders. Your next references says something about it being spun out in 2002. That never happened. OIJP demonstrated OINA's product in Japan. That's the only thing that happened in 2002. Per what was previously written, Dashlight Systems, LLC (now Dashlight, LLC) acquired control of OINA on May 17, 2004. http://everything.explained.today/Open_Interface_North_America/ I should know because I'm the guy who bought the company. The history is on Dashight's website www.dashlight.com. The comment that 80% was sold the employees is also incorrect. That's another interview taken out of context after I told Brier that the company was now 80% internally owned. That was correct statement, but not in the context in which you wrote it. The employees did not acquire controlling interest, Dashlight did. Combined with the employees, the total came to about 80%. It just so happens that at the time, I also worked for Dashlight, which was why I made the point in the interview. You also refer to it as "Daylight" and now there is no chronological context to Dashlight. The page before was 100% accurate which was why there were no other adjustments to the page from those who were there. I'm sure you were trying to be helpful, but now it's really inaccurate. This is alarming when I see the press as the defining source of facts. The references above should give you more context, and can't comment on the selling price, but it is out there as well.TomNault (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry you find the article to be a "big mess". Everything in Wikipedia starts with reliable sources. That is fundamental to how this place works. I understand you may find that frustrating. You are also misreading the article. It says that OIJ was founded in 1992. It says that OINA was founded in 2000. I will correct the spinout thing. Dashlight is a SPS and not reliable. it is literally the only source that talks about the Dashlight acquisition. I was going to discount it completely but after about two hours of looking (yes I spent about 2 hours of my time trying to fix that article which was garbage) I found the Qualcomm S-8 which made it clear that Dashlight was party to the acquisition. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you put a lot of time into this, but I'm trying to make it exactly accurate and it's frustrating because I was there. You say you don't use press releases, yet you site one here, Reference #4 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/open-interface-north-america-releases-bluemagictm-30-to-target-the-embedded-bluetoothtm-wireless-connectivity-market-76993257.html So, are press releases valid or not? They are all from the same source. You have me more confused about policy than ever. The very fact that press errors get more weight than the very person who was responsible for the acquisition is astonishing. I have a reputation too and I'm not willing to fudge the facts either. I'm sure some are. The way it is currently written, it implies that Akemi founded OINA acting on her own. She did found OINA, however it was with the help of OIJP who originally designed a version of Bluetooth software that was vetted into OINA and later killed by Greg Burns who re-architected the software starting over. I'm explaining this so you understand how it's different from how it reads. For that vetting in, OIJP received controlling interest in OINA. Akemi raised additional funds with the help of OIJP to build OINA in the US. They were not succeeding. I loved the OINA engineering team and was working with them since 2003 and thought they were amazing. When I heard it was for sale, I dove on a chance to buy the company. The firsts listed in other sources are all 100% accurate, which was why I thought it would be an incredible team, and a great buy. OIJP was not fully paid out until Qualcomm acquired the company. Here is the frustrating part, I have all the closing books. I'd be happy to let any independent 3rd party look at the docs at my attorneys office who handled the traction to get it 100% correct, with just facts and nothing more. If there is someone in the Seattle area, I'd be willing to pay the fees to have my attorney walk them through the facts. They will not differ in any way from what was posted two days ago. This really is scary to think that the press, who often gets stories wrong is given so much credibility on this site. If you have an iPhone, you can go to: General-About-Legal (at the bottom) from there counting eight paragraphs down it reads as follows, "This product contains the BLUEmagic...", and as you know Apple announced their billionth OS device. You will see the same language on an iPad and AppleTV. Yet, I bring this up because we've not made claims about footprint or anything else, other than some key facts about that company. That's all that was posted. We're now trying to source from news sources that were nine years ago. Does that mean that as the news articles disappear, so does the credibility of the site? I do appreciate the time you spend trying to keep this site honorable. I'm sure it's a challenge. This is why people don't want to contribute. Out integrity is ultimately worth less than erroneous sources. Again, thank you for your time.TomNault (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Look be careful not to start wikilawyering. I used the one press release to try to establish the presence of the CTO in the company from an early date. Not to make some Big Claim about How Great The Company Is. Please make future comments on the Talk page of the OINA article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I've moved my comments over to the OINA page.TomNault (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Exotics at Redmond Town Center

Hello, TomNault. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Exotics at Redmond Town Center".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)