Talk:Scott A. Jones

Bold claims that need some substance

Maybe Scott A. Jones did invent "voice-mail" (my hunch is that these sorts of things don't pop into existence out of an isolated vacuum but let's go so far as to give him that because really whatever...) but if you're gonna drop the, "I invented X" bomb in your autobiographical wiki page then at the very least give a little substance to that story. If true it's a pretty big deal (ubiquitous function in our day to day telephonic lives) and I for one would like to see at least one or two more sentences treating the subject. Skychildandsonofthesun (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A CNN article in 2007 stated that the company he owned invented the predominant form of voicemail.[[1]] He may in fact have invented voicemail but the wikipedia article on voicemail credits others with its invention. This seems to be enough evidence to remove Scott as "the" inventor of voicemail until some credible source can clarify.Harpervi (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Laughing out loud: I have no idea why, in March of this year I was reading and editing Scott A. Jones but I was bothered by the bold claim that read, "inventor of voice mail." Now it does not say that. The wording and implication as it reads now is less controversial and palatable to me at least. Any further challenge would have come from someone who knows more about the subject. In other words, I'm happy with it now. --Skychildandsonofthesun (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Who Wrote This?

I'm sorry but this sounds like Scott or maybe his PR flack wrote it. Wasn't this supposed to be merged with ChaCha? God, it needs to go away... WiccaWeb 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominated

I agree, nominated under notoriety, although it might qualify as spam as well. Totally self-promoting. 74.129.238.162 17:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam?

Looking at the edit history, looks like 66.170.165.82 actually belongs to his PR agency, so WiccaWeb is correct about who posted this. Should it just be deleted as spam / advertising?

74.129.230.30 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. It's not noteworthy and in total violation of Wikipedia biography policy. Since it's already been nominated for deletion and was supposed to be folded into ChaCha, how does one notify an Admin to get this Spam taken care of? WiccaWeb 05:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it should have been deleted 6 months ago. It's been long enough that I don't know if I can just delete it. I proposed deletion, so it can go in 5 days. 74.129.230.30 20:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Massive edit following 2nd AfD

I don't think there's a dispute on this person's notability, notwithstanding the fact that the self-promotion was nauseating. I have massively edited this article. jddphd (talk · contribs) 04:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Found a couple links too jddphd (talk · contribs) 04:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with Scott Jones whatsoever. However, he is easily much more notable than many inventors and business people on Wikipedia. I know that he has several patents, owned or was instrumental in many technology companies, such as Gracenote (formerly CDDB), PowerFile, Escient (sold to Denon & Marantz), Cha Cha, etc. He also helped get Indiana on Daylight Savings Time, after years of debate. I agree the article needs many more citations. Scott Jones should have a page here.--Schalliol (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Scott is a notable entrepreneur in the area of technology because of his early work in voicemail with Boston Technology and human powered Web search engine with ChaCha but claims of grandeur acurately stated and verified.Harpervi (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Patents

Is the section on the patents this guy holds noteworthy in the context of Wikipedia's format and purpose? I don't recall ever seeing a patent run-down for a bio. I don't think it adds any value to the bio, just more self-promotion. Honestly, are we going to start running the lists of this sort of thing for every entrepreneur? It's excessive and serves no real purpose for an encyclopedic biography. Unless their are major objections, it should be removed. WiccaWeb 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree (only somewhat though) about how the information is presented. Maybe the laundry list isn't the right way to display it. But I completely disagree with the implication that they should be removed in their entirety. Patent ownership unquestionably contributes to his notability, particularly as it's for something as ubiquitous and influential as voicemail. Actually, if you read the comments from the AfD his patent ownership forms the very backbone of his notability. I don't see how it detracts from the "encyclopedicness" of the style at all.

At any rate, this was my reasoning for keeping them in when I copy-edited this article (which now looks to be headed for a "KEEP" at this point from the 2nd AfD). I also completely disagree with the "if we do this for him we'll have to do it for everyone" reasoning too. Believe me I place great value on consistency but in this case I find that a spurious conclusion.

In short, I strongly believe the patent references need keeping, but I can't say I'd argue with making their presentation more compact. jddphd (talk · contribs) 15:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WiccaWeb is right. It is excessive, and this entire article is self-promotion. It's embarrassing that this "article" is allowed to remain in its current form. Shame on you for supporting it. Quite frankly it indicates to me a personal relationship, because there is no other reason to support such an out of place anomaly in general Wiki practices. 131.30.121.23 18:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just keep the ones for which he is noted. Rklawton 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

While the patents themselves may not be worth noting, the inventions that spurred the growth of voice mail and other technologies would normally be noted in articles. The patents would be good references noting he has in fact invented such notable inventions.--Schalliol (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

His company is cited by CNN [2] as the inventor of the predominant form of voicemail. Although Scott and his company, Boston Technology, are mentioned early in the history in the wikipedia voicemail article but not as inventing voicemail which is credited to others in the article.Harpervi (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding information to the Inventor

I want to clean this page up a little, with all the deletions to it in the past, its looking pretty poorly.

Also, I would like to remove the info boxes referencing the problems of this article. It seems they have been cleared up. Any objections? The man has some pretty interesting subjects and I believe they should be noted with the facts. Thisandthem (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Galaxia links

Those happen to be advertising links (no third-party involved), and while interesting, do not serve as reliable sources Tedickey (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. Do you think both links are consider advertising? Story on LED Displays also? Think this is a site for small storys and photos? Let me know,Thanks Thisandthem (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, the Indystar link has the tone of advertising, and the other definitely is. It would be nice to have a reliable source that is (a) known to be knowledgable and (b) not Scott Jones Tedickey (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If I get the information from the newpaper like the indianapolis star from a story from a reporter, could I use that about the LED lights?

And if I can do that, how would I site something like that? Thanks for being patient also. Do I just remove those other links? Thisandthem (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, you could do that. One thing to ask when looking at a link is: who said that, and why. If it's not easy to answer, then someone will question the source. (I can help with formatting a cite...) Tedickey (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Scott A. Jones/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs references to lift it to B-class. --Bookworm857158367 05:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 05:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)