Talk:Louis Rossmann

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Louis Rossmann.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Links and stuff

Please fix the references up a bit (like adding Retrieved date, on my edit it was September 1) as I don't know how to do that. Also, criticism of MacBook is not a "campaign", so go figure what to do with that. Emperoringo (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Citations are his own youtube videos?

I wasn't aware of youtube videos being reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.36.67.212 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Surely Louis Rossmann is the most reliable source for talking about himself! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure the "notable videos" are actually notable

Shouldn't it focus on his most viewed video, like "The horrible truth about Apple's repeated engineering failures" and "Genius Bar caught ripping customer off ON CAMERA", etc? I am a longtime viewer of his channel and did not know about the videos mentioned. BalaM314 (π) (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Originally the section was titled "Videos". In September 2021 I changed the section title from "Videos" to "Notable videos" because I wanted someone who was unfamiliar with Rossmann to understand that the section was not an exhaustive list of his videos. My interpretation is that the "Campaigns" section is for Rossmann's activist work and the Notable videos section is for other important information/content related to his YouTube channel. However, there is some content that I consider to be activist work in the notable video section and a few videos that I don't consider to be activist work in the campaigns section. I have spent some time thinking about this article's formatting and I haven't been able to come up with any way to improve it. If you've got a better section title or any other changes in mind feel free to implement them. MasonJar55 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Original Research Notice

There are multiple instances of OR in this article, most notable is his recent move from NY to TX. While certainly an interesting fact, it's inclusion should not be solely based on his own personal announcement or YT videos. (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tca6xsBEuGw) referenced in the lead. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Wikipedia does allow primary sources, such as diaries. It's one thing if some opinion of his was cited as fact, but apparently you've got a problem with the fact that he moved states is being reported by himself. How so? If I write a blog about my experience watching his videos and mention he moved, is that a better source to you? 89.64.42.9 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

My recent edit was (incorrectly?) reverted

My edit was reverted, apparently because of WP:UNDUE: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1188999710. Forgive me if I misunderstand, but since there is no published alternative viewpoint, WP:UNDUE does not apply:

 Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

To me, this implies that if there is only one viewpoint published by a reliable source, then it is:

• Okay to publish that viewpoint; and
• Incorrect to publish any other viewpoint

If the argument was that my sources don't meet the criteria defined in WP:BLPSELFPUB for a reliable self-published source, then we could debate that, since they are borderline. But my edit does not, I believe, violate WP:UNDUE. Pandapip1 (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I might argue that it could be considered WP:OR and not necessarily undue (but to your point, WP:BLPSELFPUB would also apply). I would love it if a RS could cover Rossman's adventures in New York, but unless someone actually does, it probably shouldn't be included on his BLP, unfortunately. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

How is some random Youtuber notable?

What's he done other than being a loudmouth about "right to repaair" Wikipedia:Notability applies here, and I fail to see how "random Youtuber" = notable. Also WP:SOAPBOX This is is not a soapbox for grandstanding about "right to repair." If there are noteworthy issues about right to repair then put them on Apple's page 27.96.192.138 (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Rather than attempting to manually remove well sourced information from an article as you did, start an AfD to gain consensus if you believe this BLP doesn't meet GNG. - Skipple ☎ 05:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Just as an FYI - There was already an AFD discussion where the question of notability was discussed. - Skipple ☎ 21:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

At the very least the references to Youtube need to be removed unless the comments come from a reliable source [[1]]. YouTube itself is not a reliable source of information for anything and the proof is clickbait channels such as Rebuild Rescue That does not even talk about why Sam is dead. Louis uses his attitude for the same clockbaity bullshit. He doesn't give a Fµck about right to repair, he's a clickbait loudmouth.

1) Per my example the NTSB is a reliable source...

2) by comparison Loudmouth Rossman is not a reliable source or even a noteworthy human being.

I use the example above to show you exactly where clickbaity bullwhack may get you.... Someone died as a result... Loudmouth Rossman is in it for the same game CLICkS...

Is this what has become of Wikipedia? tolerating clickbaity bullwhack over reliable sources?

The NTSB is a reliable source, Loudmouth Rossman is not... As to the issue of right to repair, it's a significant issue to contend with that either needs to be covered directly under Apple's wiki page, or in an article in and of itself... Not just some random bullwhack from a clickbaity loudmouth who lives in Texas.

Either fix the sources or delete them, one of the two. Per my example if I really wanted to I could find the accident mishap which led to a fatality directly on the NTSB website, that IS a credible source on a noteworthy event, from the NTSB as the peak body for that investigation... by comparison loudmouth Rossman is just a clickbaity idiot who uses his channel as a "running stream of consciousness" that has about as much veracity as anything Donald Trump has to say at this point.

in simple terms a 12 year old can understand.... Following (perhaps well meaning) but misguided information may well nominate you for self deletion, and a Darwin Award. I DON'T see the noteworthiness in someone who makes about as much noise as my fart.

Perhaps the latest video sums it all up don't plug your dildo into the wrong port. --27.96.194.2 (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I would encourage you to tone it down, as your comments on this talk page do not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines for respectful and constructive communication. Specifically, it violates the following key policies:

1. Civility (WP:CIV): All editors should interact with each other in a respectful and considerate manner. Personal attacks, derogatory language, and uncivil remarks, such as those in your comment, detract from constructive dialogue and the collaborative atmosphere Wikipedia strives to maintain.
2. No personal attacks (WP:PA): Comments should be focused on content, not contributors. Personal attacks, including derogatory comments about individuals or groups, are not acceptable. Your comment contains language and comparisons that are inappropriate and goes against this policy.
3. Etiquette (WP:EQ): Positive etiquette is expected from all contributors. This includes avoiding inflammatory remarks and maintaining a polite and welcoming environment. The analogy used in your comment, along with the overall tone, is not in line with the level of decorum expected on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and the quality of its content and discussions relies on the constructive contributions of its users. While debates and disagreements are natural, they should always be conducted in a manner that is respectful and aimed at improving the encyclopedia. Please take a moment to review these policies and ensure that future contributions align with the community's standards for conduct. Snickerdoooodle (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Censorship of content

Should the censorship of the app name "Grayjay" be included? Annon-of-good-will (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Never heard of it. If you have a reliable source and it is relevant, go ahead and add it. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 22:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Piracy

WP:NOTFORUM
Rossman has been making videos where he argues for “ the moral, right” to pirate Contant, but then all the sudden will say “ don’t watch the content because it’s not worth it” which comes across more of a political reason than moral reason. I wonder if Rossman has ties to conservative or Randian idealogy groups. B ThatNerdyGuy (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

General Motors expanding its software claims to the entire vehicle

I have never edited to a wiki, so please advise any errors in citation. This came to my attention recently, and the content is attributed to the author; Pete Bigelow.

General Motors says it owns your car's software Buy a General Motors vehicle lately? Check the fine print. The company says you may not own some parts of the vehicle that actually make it run. PETE BIGELOW MAY 20, 2015

Start Conversation Buy a General Motors vehicle lately? Check the fine print. The company says you may not own some parts of a vehicle that actually make it run.

In comments sure to rankle customers, a GM attorney said Tuesday the company believes the software that controls every vehicle function belongs to them. Even after customers pay tens of thousands of dollars for a car, the company says users are merely signing a licensing agreement to use it over its lifetime.

"It is our position the software in the vehicle is licensed by the owner of the vehicle," attorney Harry Lightsey said.

The comments came in Los Angeles during a hearing conducted by the US Copyright Office, which will soon decide whether to grant exemptions in copyright laws that would allow independent mechanics and gearheads to continue fix and repair cars.

A pivotal question the federal officials must answer in making that determination is whether car companies maintain proprietary rights to software that underpins vehicles or whether customers can modify their purchases as they see fit.

GM's stance is a sweeping one. Cars today are mobile computing networks. Critical functions like steering, acceleration and braking are all controlled by software. Each GM model contains an average of 30 electronic control units. Without legal access to these ECUs and the software that run them, mechanics and others who enjoy working on cars may need to cease repairs.

GM's comments echoed those of heavy equipment manufacturer John Deere, which asserted lifetime ownership rights of software found in its products in written submissions to the Copyright Office. Every three years, the office hears arguments for whether certain activities should be exempted from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's Section 1201.

General Motors currently prompts customers to sign licensing agreements for some vehicle functions, like its OnStar navigation and infotainment packages. Although they don't have car buyers sign agreements for all ECUs, the company is now claiming that licensing principle applies across the entire car.

"What we have in today's world, for example, is there is a license agreement for GM's telematics system and for the infotainment system, and those are the systems the owner interacts with and comes in direct contact with," Lightsey said. "It would be difficult to have licenses for the myriad number of ECUs in a vehicle."

Owners have more rights than licensees under existing laws – or a proposed exemption – to modify these software codes without infringing on copyright protections. So the distinction between the two is important to General Motors' request that the Copyright Office deny the proposed exemption.

In explicitly having customers sign agreements for telematics and infotainment services but not other ECUs, Kit Walsh, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that's fighting for individuals' right to repair cars, argues the company has drawn its own line between what software is licensed and which is owned.

"It's pretty clear that there's no written agreement that restricts a purchaser's ability to use and re-sell that copy," he said.

Further complicating GM's argument over ownership is the fact licenses for OnStar are not necessarily transferred from one person to the next when a car is sold. Unless the previous owner cancels their OnStar subscription, the company acknowledged it lacks a mechanism to track these changes.

"Our position would be when they transfer the car, they transfer what they own – the car itself – and the license to operate that software," Lightsey said.

The broader issue of whether an exemption to the DMCA's section 1201 is granted could hinge on these used-car transfers. But there are pitfalls on both sides of the issue.

If an exemption is granted and mechanics and car enthusiasts could make any modifications they wanted to software, Jacqueline Charlesworth, general counsel for the Copyright Office, said she found it "troubling" potential buyers of used cars could be left unaware of what changes were made.

"You're putting that burden on buyers of many, many used cars to have that software system completely evaluated," she said. "To me, I don't know, that's a troubling prospect that in an ordinary used-car transaction you have to be worried about whether there's been a software modification."

She feared a scenario that would pose a danger to safety, such as a used-car buyer purchasing a car that had airbags purposely disabled. A driver may be unaware of such a modification until it was too late.

Regardless of whether an exemption is granted, observers said they foresee General Motors and other carmakers adding more licensing agreements that cover ECUs. They fear these agreements would undercut mechanics' legal rights to tinker with cars and innovate. Meanwhile they predict OEMs will increasingly pressure customers to only use approved dealerships and parts for their cars.

Kyle Wiens, a right-to-repair advocate who founded ifixit.com, a do-it-yourself repair website, said the auto industry can only squeeze so hard before consumers will fight back.

"I think people are starting to get more savvy," he said. "We have had this expectation of being able to modify software. We've been adding apps and jailbreaking phones. So we know how to modify software. Those guys know how to modify hardware. Now it's time for the two to get together."

Related Video: 71.218.102.132 (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)