Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:40, 17 August 2009

Companies Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

This page is not a forum for general discussion about DreamHost. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about DreamHost at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DreamHost article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 45 days

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 23 June 2009, see discussion. Keep, 26 October 2007, see discussion. No consensus, 21 April 2006, see discussion.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

wikis and spanish blogs as reliable sources

per ]: the thing i love about spanish blogs is how reliable they are. the thing i love about wikis that anyone can register for and edit, is how reliable they are. let's edit war over this one!

I linked to a particular revision that had been edited by Josh Jones, one of the founders, so "anyone can edit" doesn't apply. I don't know how reliable the Spanish source is, but it establishes world-wide interest.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

as an admin, i'd hope that you would know how[REDACTED] feels about blogs in situations like this. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

well, if you don't, i'll just tell you. the spanish language blog is not a good source and should be removed. and the wiki source is just a weasely way to add some more advertising into this article. who cares about their newest promotion? it's not notable, especially if only a blog and dreamhost's wiki only mention it. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not a good source? How do you know it's not the Spanish equivalent to TechCrunch? "It's a blog" doesn't automatically disqualify it: if you have a particular objection, the reliable sources noticeboard is that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

how about you prove that it *is* reliable? your spanish must not be as good as mine, because i took one look at it and discovered it's an unreliable blog, which is why i removed it. you added it back without knowing anything about the site, or that it even was a blog. the burden is on you. the reliable sources noticeboard is that way. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP. Cast-iron sourcing is preferable, but surely not required. It would be fair to say that I'm not entirely happy with the standard of sourcing that we have for this particular service. It isn't controversial, so I don't think it needs to be deleted; however, I would still like to see better sourcing if it becomes available in the future. As far as the wiki source is concerned, this "announcement" of the service may be more appropriate. The page is locked so that only administrators and sysops can edit it, but you can still link to a specific version for added reliability. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

spanish blogs don't become reliable because you don't speak spanish. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Wikis are generally not considered reliable sources and should be removed. Blogs are sometimes considered reliable so can be used. Non-English sourcing is fine - it sometimes helps to supply a translation if they are questioned. As a general rule the more exceptional a claim the stronger the sourcing should be. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I know there's a problem with wikis: that's why I found a revision on the official wiki edited by one of the co-founders, instead o just linking to the whole page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

non notable spanish-language blog with no editorial oversight. plus random, pseudo anonymous contributors with names like 'cyberfrancis'. but don't listen to me; i only speak spanish and actually understand the site. edit war instead and then tell me the burden is on me to prove it's unreliable, when the burden is actually on you to prove it's reliable. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As Banjeboi noted, exceptional claims require stronger sourcing. In this case, however, we aren't talking about anything even approaching an exceptional claim. We are looking for sources that prove the existence of something non-controversial, rather than looking for sources that establish notability. Once the notability of the subject has been established (see 3 previous AfDs), whether or not a specific detail is notable is less significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Projecting forward, will you want to re-publish their entire marketing and PR campaigns here in this article, since you can find a self-published blog or wiki article by a founder, for each campaign? Is this the purpose of wikipedia.? Judas278 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC).

To whom is this question addressed? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna go out on a limb but these repeated attempts to include advertising material by Scjessey can in no way be considered good faith edits since he should be fully aware that this sort of conduct is not acceptable.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Admin Bjweeks said the File hosting category should be backed up by article text. I added the article text, with citations. What's "not acceptable" here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And I swear I'm going to metaphorically snap that limb off and bash somebody over the head with it if anyone accuses me of "advertising" again - especially when it wasn't me who added the text. Let ArbCom draw their own conclusions, 194, and please cease your bad faith assertions immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How exactly do you 'metaphorically' snap someone's limb off and smash them over the head with it? also, he's right - it's advertising. what are you going to 'metaphorically' do to me? Theserialcomma (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

3 things for you:

1. Metaphor - knowledge is power
2. Nothing I do on Misplaced Pages is "advertising". The Arbitration Committee will confirm that.
3. Stop goading other editors. It does you no credit. ArbCom will not be impressed by your assumptions of bad faith either.

-- Scjessey (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry. was that a good faith metaphor about smashing someone's head? those literary devices confuse me sometimes. Theserialcomma (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You can hardly blame me for making an angry (but harmless) response to yet another accusation of bad faith and "advertising", since there have been so many. If editors would restrict themselves to discussion of content, rather than each other, we wouldn't be in this bloody mess in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Time for a "told you so". To the unanswered question - can we duplicate summaries of all the advertising and incidents the founders have blogged and wiki'd about? Or only if they showed up in at least one other semi-blog too. Judas278 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As you will see from this comment I made earlier in the thread, the quality of the sourcing concerns me - just not enough to warrant an exclusion of the information (due to its totally uncontroversial nature). I am not sure what you are talking about in the second part of your comment because it doesn't seem to refer to Misplaced Pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

File hosting information

Judas has just removed the information added by Sarek on file hosting, with the misleading edit summary of "most discussion disagrees with the addition, so removing." I am not going to restore it because I've pledged to avoid edit warring; however, I would like to hear a better explanation from Judas for this provocative edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

ThreeTwo people have reverted to keep it in: two have reverted to keep it out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to see it in, but I'm not going to get involved in an edit war over it. I'd like to see better sourcing, but although it has plenty of coverage on teh intarwebs, it is all low-quality sources from what I can see. Most of the coverage revolves around the "anti-DRM" aspect of the service (which was predictably popular). I don't think the fact of this service can be disputed, and it certainly isn't "controversial", so I see no reason why it should be excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(OD) You can count actual reverts, or you can count editors discussion comments. If you count editors comments, "most discussion disagrees with the addition, so" it should be removed. The addition uses unreliable sources, and presents it with a biased positive description. It does not say it is still a "beta" service after 3 years, for regular customers-only, as even the first unreliable source says. The 2nd source is also selectively an old wiki source, where the newest version shows there are 20 unanswered questions (although the page says only 3, another inaccuracy showing unreliability). The wiki page is locked, so it's not even clear this "beta" service for customers only is still being developed. And none of this original research really matters, because reliable sources have taken about zero notice of this "service". Question remains: how much advertising material will be repeated here with poor sourcing, and will "incidents" with similar sourcing also be added, for balance? Judas278 (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Count discussion? Ok. ThreeTwo editors agree with keeping it in, twothree editors want to take it out, one doesn't say. No consensus to delete. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This file hosting while interesting is trivial/none notable and the sources regarding it are also not the strongest, it also appears to me that the portrayal of it is flawed.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What part of the portrayal is flawed? I thought I got it right... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Me, Theserialcomma, 194x makes 3 opposing this poorly sourced add. You and Scjessey, who also stated the sources are poor, makes 2 supporting the add. A couple others have not firmly stated a position, but don't exactly support the sourcing. To repeat: The portrayal leaves out "beta", for regular customers only, and many (at least 20) unanswered questions about the service, including high cost. Given poor, selective sources and flawed biased portrayal, the add shouldn't. Judas278 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with addressing some of Judas278's concerns. How about this:

In 2006, DreamHost began offering a file hosting service they call "Files Forever". It allows users to store files on their servers "forever" after paying a one-time storage fee, and then redistribute or sell them, with DreamHost handling the credit card transaction. The service, described by the company as a beta version, is only available to existing customers.

-- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect to "unanswered questions" about the service, the DreamHost Wiki is not setup to respond to questions - those are supposed to be addressed via regular support avenues (and the article is tagged as such). It is entirely possible that all those questions have been answered elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Work to consensus seems gone. There are 3 people here saying the sourcing is so poor you should not add the advertisement. Another (Scjessey) says it's poor sourcing but that's ok. There's now a link directly to another "sign-up" here page (files.dreamhost.com), which is clearly self-serving for the company. If anyone did anything similar towards another "for profit" site, the link would be deleted immediately. The "Unanswered_questions" section is already in Sarek's preferred version of the poor source, so we don't need to ignore the many unanswered questions in the latest version. The original research explanation of company policy is irrelevant and makes the proponent appear as a company spokesperson. The impartial interpretation of the 2 versions of the unreliable wiki source is: they asked for questions, they got too many, and they left them unanswered. Judas278 (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I understand the desire by a couple of editors to reduce the more verbose version we started with, but the end result reads poorly. I would like to see this rewritten for clarity and improved flow. Perhaps this will work, as it combines concepts from both versions:

In 2006, the company began offering a beta version of a file hosting service they call "Files Forever". Existing customers can store files "forever" after paying a one-time storage fee, and may redistribute or sell them with DreamHost handling the transactions.

Note that in this version, I have restored the additional citation from the earlier version. No valid reasons was given for its removal, and it confirms the "beta" and "customers only" information desired by Judas. Comments about this being a "self-serving" link are without merit - this is the home page of the service, so if it isn't cited as a reference (which makes more sense) it should be placed in the list of external links instead. I'm sure the former option is preferred. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's been no response from anyone since I posted this a couple of days ago. Since there have been no objections, I will go ahead and implement it. Please don't revert without prior discussion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed lock of article

I propose that the article be locked until the arbitration is done and that discussions regarding the article here on the talkpage also be slowed down or paused. If I or anyone else is infact having this huge negative effect on the development of this article then it would be much better to wait until the arbitration committee rids this article of that individuals participation and to continue developing the article afterwards.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I strongly oppose this proposal for several reasons:

1. The article is not under immediate threat of vandalism.
2. There is no edit war going on.
3. Informal mediation is still underway, and may yet prove productive.
4. Some arbitrators have quite rightly indicated that further discussion should take place in the form of specific requests for comment and advice from currently uninvolved administrators.
5. Some arbitrators have quite rightly indicated that additional dispute resolution at WP:CNB (and perhaps WP:COI) would be preferable to arbitration.
6. The existing form of the article continues to include the overlarge and non-neutral "incidents" section disliked by uninvolved editors in the recent RfC.

This article needs more editors, not less. More editors means more ideas, more people looking for sources, more people checking the work of others, and greater transparency and neutrality. Locking the article would prevent (or at least hinder) the introduction of more editors to help restore a productive environment. All discussion should focus on matters of content. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 194x's protection suggestion, and recently asked our mediator to do it. At the same time, I generally agree with the new attitudes being stated by Scjessey, but not some details like RfC interpretation. Judas278 (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

When you say you disagree with my "RfC interpretation", are you referring to what I said above about the opinion of the arbitration committee, or with the comments made with respect to the "incidents" section? In the spirit of fostering good relations, I will try to ignore your "new attitudes" characterization. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Admission of guilt It's like this the other day Scjessey suggested something and I responded to it with a *Strong oppose and some explanation but that's not really the way one is supposed to respond to such things, one is rather to try and discuss the matters and such but the thing is with this user Scjessey is that he repeatedly suggest adding advertisement material to the article and such and it has been discussed repeatedly before but he just doesn't take a hint so well one just simply loses his patience with him and doesn't assume good faith like one is mandated to do cause good faith seems so far fetched in his case and instead just tries to save some time by voicing his opposition in the clearest way possible. I also want to state that when it comes to this article that a new attitude simply isn't credible either. There you have it I'm guilty.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject help

I just posted over on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Companies to try to get some extra eyes here and break the logjam. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should say that. I've just been looking over various WikiProjects to see what might be a best fit. I was also thinking about "computing" (and/or subproject of "websites"). I'd welcome any proactive community effort to attract more bodies to this article (apart from direct canvassing, of course). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a template to the top of the page. It automatically adds this article to the list awaiting assessment. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also added the "companies portal" template to the external links section of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of COI issue

I'd like to propose that the current {{Article issues}} tag be removed from the article, and replaced with a {{POV}} tag. The use of the COI portion of the tag has become a badge of shame, which is frowned upon by the community and specifically referred to in the documentation of the tag. Tags like these are intended as temporary warnings to encourage resolution, and their continued presence could be regarded as a violation of WP:NPA (because they comment on editors, not content). Individuals claiming a conflict of interest exists have been content to make the accusation without attempting any form of resolution, and I think this is unreasonable. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me - doing it now. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

in order to ascertain whether this article has COI issues, Scjessey, it would be fair for you to approximate how much compensation you have received from dreamhost. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a completely unreasonable request, and completely inappropriate for an article talk page. Being associated with the subject of the article is not a conflict of interest. The conflict occurs if that association causes an editor to violate Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines because of that association. If you are making that sort of assertion, I suggest you do so in the appropriate place. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not a dreamhost customer and I never have been. It is however my legitimate complaint that Scjessey and Sarekofvulcan are and that their being so might be a conflict of interest, they have both edited this article and I know that a certain Judas agrees with me on this matter. Scjessey and Sarek have also complained that Judas is a former disgruntled customer and that he therefor has a coi, Judas has edited this article. With accusations abound COI does infact belong here and it should stand until a consensus for dropping it is reached.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

An independent editor agreed it should be removed -- rather than argue with the bunch of us, I'll go with their opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

so no one's concerned that scjessey admittedly receives financial compensation from this company and is unwilling to discuss how any details, like, for example, how much. Okay... Theserialcomma (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - As I have repeatedly stated, all DreamHost customers are automatically signed-up to receive compensation from the company's referral scheme. That includes all former customers, by the way. Once again, I will remind you that this is a wholly inappropriate venue to bring this up. This talk page is for discussing the content of the article, not the private financial matters of Wikipedians. If you have a grievance, I suggest you gather your evidence and open a case at WP:COIN. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the request, as per the policy above. Dayewalker (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing This could be seen as disruptive editing on your part it is stated that QUOTE You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it. Misplaced Pages policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited controversial material must be removed immediately from both the article and the Talk page, and by extension any related Project pages. Only once you have justified your edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to others. UNQUOTE So in other words stop the reverting and allow a consensus to form, do not act as if you are somehow entitled to change the article however you want while others have to first ask your permission.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

*suggests quietly that 194x might want to consider taking his own advice.*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit war the tag. In my initial comment at the beginning of this section, I proposed the replacement of the tag and gave my reasons. I expected (and hoped for) discussion, not edit warring. I would like to see this COI issue resolved and the tag removed; however, I would ask all parties to avoid edit warring. I am hoping to foster a culture of "proposal → discussion → consensus → implementation" here, and not the current system of edit warring, arguments, accusations, assumptions of bad faith and administrator blocks. Please. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I just went over to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#DreamHost for more opinions on the subject.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Establishing a consensus for proposed changes to the article is something which the ones proposing it have to do NOT! those that oppose the change being made. Bullying this change into place by frequently reinserting it is not civil.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no consensus for removal of the tag (or anything, frankly) is required. It is, however, preferable because it reduces the likelihood of edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither is "bullying" civil. Again, please take your own advice. Two people outside the primary dispute core group have agreed it should come out - in my view, that's a lot more representative than your opinion or mine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dayewalker can not be considered an outsider.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's true, but he's not involved enough to be a party to the arb case, which was the definition I was using - and FennShaya (sp?) is definitely outside.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So what if Day isn't invovled enough to be a party to the arb case? It's questionable if Theserialcomma should be a party to it, who is an who isn't a party to it has simply been a matter of your invitation really. Day is an involved editor who always sides with those wanting to ad pro dreamhost material to the article. This guy the fenshaya has so far not shown a great interest in editing this article in a civil and calm manner and also seems to take this pro dreamhost stance. This article shouldn't be touched for the time being really until the arbitration is over, it's just a waste of time.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(OD) So basically anyone who disagrees with you or isn't actively supporting you is an "involved editor?" Dayewalker (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The one person who has responded so far at the conflict of interest noticeboard has reviewed the discussion and concluded there is no COI. Can we stop this now?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the edit warring

Judas has just reverted the last batch of changes. Although this is a provocative, tendentious and disruptive act, I would like to repeat my plea to avoid edit warring. The changes Judas reverted had pretty broad support on this talk page, so I see no reason why we cannot resolve this latest dispute amicably with some productive discussion. Just to recap, there are two issues here:

1. The COI tag discussed immediately above.
2. The slight change in text (and an apparent misuse of a reference).

-- Scjessey (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Judas continues to edit war, despite entreaties on this talk page and a reasonably broad agreement on the disputed text. I would appreciate opinions on whether or not this should be taken to the new content noticeboard, or is WP:AN3 a better approach? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

An outside view

As an experienced editor with zero past or present connection to DreamHost (I've only heard of them through this dispute and still know nothing of them) I've had a quick look at some of the edits and issues in this thread. Two observations, for what it's worth:

• Users are not expected to have no outside life, nor to avoid all mention of things that matter to them. They are expected to leave bias at the door, edit neutrally and with reasonable regard for core policies, and if they cannot edit neutrally then to rsstrict themselves voluntarily to edits that are "safe" (typos or "flow", for example) and talk page comments rather than act disruptively in editing. In other words, having a COI by itself is something others should be aware of but ideally should not be a reason not to edit, but some may find it hard to edit properly on topics they hold a significant view and therefore need to avoid editing directly on areas they are likely to edit improperly. Other users often assess this by how they edit.

• A number of edits in the dispute are not (as I would see it) encyclopedic in nature. For example the fact an article is about a business does not mean that every failing or success by that business is worthy of note. A "typing error" that caused websites to go down for a brief period is just not encyclopedic, however useful or interesting to a possible client, customer or supplier - we are not here to log every last thing that ever happens in their world. Ditto much of this edit - "the business has a bespoke user interface which has attracted some criticism " is possibly all that needs saying.

FT2  01:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments. The article previously contained mention of bigger typo problems and associated notoriety, which has been removed by pro-company editors. Also, previous criticism of the panel is no longer even mentioned at all. There is nothing special about this panel, but proponents insist on mentioning it. Judas278 (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What would seem an appropriate outside view would be to go back and read the entire talkpage archive up to and including the current discussion topics, then form an opinion. When I originally added the COI tag, there appeared to be just that. Every edit made to this article was reviewed and if it coincided with the view of the overload editor it was kept, otherwise it was summarily dismissed and reverted. Since that time more editors have gotten involved in the process and more eyes are on proposed changes and edits, with discussion and consensus following to a point. As the article reads at this point, I can find no COI content and with ongoing discussion and consensus, I would agree that the COI tag should be removed. I'm glad to see more interest has been generated in expanding and improving the article content. To my eyes, it still has a long way to go for encyclopedic content. NOTE: For an editor not involved in this article or not having taken the time to read the entire talkpage, archives included, to removed the COI tag, was a mess waiting to happen in the first place. I would hope anyone responding to such a request would take the time to thoroughly investigate and thence be more able to make an informed edit. JavierMC 17:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Tag Removal

Rather than contribute to the edit war, I'd like to make an official proposal here to remove the COI tag as per the discussion above. It seems as if only two editors feel strongly that it should stay, and one of those is now retired after an admin asked him to stop interacting with Scjessey . As I said above, I see the COI tag as being used as a scarlet letter for edits made years ago. Now with much more attention to the page, the tag is outdated and any COI in the article has been removed. Thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The tag has already been removed, and I think the discussion at WP:COIN has pretty much supported that removal. There is still the matter of the POV tag, which has a very old date on it at the moment, but I think it should remain until the issues with the "incidents" section have been worked out. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted, apologies, I glanced at the neutrality tag and misread it as the original disputed POV tag. I'll agree on the current tag, so if there are no other comments, we can close this discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Incidents" section proposal

Now that some of the other concerns, such as the COI matter, have been largely resolved, I would like to revisit my earlier proposal to consolidate the "incidents" section somewhat. Here is the existing text:

In July, 2006 DreamHost suffered two power outages that caused significant downtime for its customers. The outage was a result of a rolling blackout involving DreamHost's datacenter. Other providers such as Media Temple and MySpace were also affected. There was "a similar outage in September 2005." In July 2007, the company relocated servers to a different data center due to "space and power constraints."

In June, 2007 approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the incident, the company made "numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits."

On January 15, 2008, DreamHost accidentally billed some users for an extra year's worth of services, which they initially reported as $7.5 million in extra charges. The company later stated the final total was $2.1 million.

And here is my proposed revision:

In July, 2006, two power outages in the building housing DreamHost's datacenter caused significant disruption to services offered by DreamHost, Media Temple and MySpace. In June, 2007 approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the incident, the company made "numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits." On January 15, 2008, DreamHost accidentally billed some users for an extra year's worth of services, which they initially reported as $7.5 million in extra charges. The company later stated the final total was $2.1 million.

I also think the section header could be downgraded to a level 3, making it a subsection of "web hosting" like the chunk on file hosting. I would be grateful for opinions on this text, together with any suggestions for improvement. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I will shortly be implementing this proposed change per WP:SILENCE. Please speak up if you wish to voice objections (or support) for this proposal - better to do that than edit war the change after the fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your wording change is good, assuming all the references are the same -- I didn't double-check them. I wouldn't downgrade the section header, though. I'll double-check at the NPOV board. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The wording and references are the same as when I previously proposed these changes on June 8, following advice from the informal mediator, but prior to the RfC on the existing wording. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(od)Wasn't there a cause and effect to the July 2006 incident? I seem to remember previous wording stating that as a result they moved to a better facility. It might be a good idea to state the corrective action as well as the incident itself.JavierMC 18:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There's wording to that effect in the first version above. I don't have a problem with leaving that in: it just seemed a bit irrelevant to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I oppose these changes being made per my prior objections.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made Scjessey's proposed edit to the article (including Javier's suggestion), but I split the three incidents apart for readability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The finished result doesn't seem quite right. I think the outages at the Garland building were definitely a contributing factor to DreamHost moving to another building, but there were certainly other reasons too. The version we have now implies a direct relationship that doesn't really exist (and also, the relocation isn't an "incident", or even a particularly notable event). Another thing I noticed is that "numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits" doesn't really make sense - something I should've spotted in my earlier reworking. Is this long quote absolutely necessary? In such a short paragraph, perhaps it would be better for the text to summarize it with something like: "In response to the incident, the company made some changes to improve security." Finally, I'm not sure why it is necessary to split it up into three separate paragraphs. All the sentences refer to "incidents", so there should be no problem with them being incorporated into one paragraph. May I proffer this alternative:

In July, 2006, two power outages in the building housing DreamHost's datacenter caused significant disruption to services offered by DreamHost, Media Temple and MySpace. In June, 2007 approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the incident, the company made some changes to improve security. On January 15, 2008, DreamHost accidentally billed some users for an extra year's worth of services, which they initially reported as $7.5 million in extra charges. The company later stated the final total was $2.1 million.

Thoughts? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall take it from the apparent 5-day silence that nobody objects to these changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

194 has reverted the perfectly reasonable improvement I outlined above, with no talk page explanation and no alternative proposal. I would appreciate comments from other editors familiar with this article, but I will file an RfC if necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I still object to running all three incidents together into one paragraph: as they're three independent incidents, they shouldn't all be treated in the same thought (which is what a paragraph should be).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think an RfC is a good idea - it's reached the stage where we should consider the dispute a user conduct problem. PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

@Sarek - I don't like to see single-sentence paragraphs if at all possible; however, if everyone thinks that is the best approach I have no real objection. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

@PhilKnight - I think that an RfC should be a last resort, since an RfC has already taken place on this same material earlier. We are now at the post-RfC implementation stage, with discussion now largely limited to style, rather than content. The problem here is really only related to 194's objections to any proposals to improve the article. I am leaning toward asking WP:ANI to look at this, since it comes under the auspices of user conduct and disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be extremely appropriate if Scjessey were to file a conduct complaint against me LOL.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll request

I would like to get a feel for the direction and preference of editors with respect to this section. If there is no obvious preference/consensus for one of them, I shall file an RfC per the discussion above. I would be grateful if editors could offer opinions/thoughts as well as indicating their preference.

• A (current version)
• B (Scjessey version split up per Sarek's preference)
• C (Scjessey version combined)

Version A

In July 2006, two power outages in the building housing DreamHost's datacenter caused significant disruption to services offered by DreamHost, Media Temple and MySpace. About a year later, the company relocated to a different data center due to "space and power constraints" at LA Telecom.

In June 2007, approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the incident, the company made "numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits."

On January 15, 2008, DreamHost accidentally billed some users for an extra year's worth of services, which they initially reported as $7.5 million in extra charges. The company later stated the final total was $2.1 million.

Version B

In July, 2006, two power outages in the building housing DreamHost's datacenter caused significant disruption to services offered by DreamHost, Media Temple and MySpace.

In June, 2007 approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the incident, the company made some changes to improve security.

On January 15, 2008, DreamHost accidentally billed some users for an extra year's worth of services, which they initially reported as $7.5 million in extra charges. The company later stated the final total was $2.1 million.

Version C

In July, 2006, two power outages in the building housing DreamHost's datacenter caused significant disruption to services offered by DreamHost, Media Temple and MySpace. A year later, approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the incident, the company made some changes to improve security. The following January, DreamHost accidentally billed some users for an extra year's worth of services, which they initially reported as $7.5 million in extra charges. The company later stated the final total was $2.1 million.

Version B differs in that it removes the information about the datacenter move (not directly related to outages) and it removes the long quote about specific (and not particularly notable) changes that were made. Version C combines the sentences in version B and de-specifies some of the date information to make the paragraph a more natural prose. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• C - I prefer this because it loses some superfluous information and doesn't feel too much like a list. I could settle on any of the 3 versions, but this is my preference. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

IP stuff

I've noticed that we've had the odd random IP address (usually first-time editors) removing or adding material in the last few days. Unless it is a case of obvious vandalism, I am operating on quite a severe editing restriction; however, I have boldly restored material that a new IP editor has removed as it is fairly controversial material that involved heated talk page discussion. It probably needs additional discussion if significant changes are going to be made. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The new IP editor has just reverted me. I have left a friendly note on his/her talk page about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the best place to adress this matter to begin with would have been his talkpage and not this one.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Since most IP editors are on dynamic IPs, it's not unusual to take a content discussion to the article talk page rather than leave a message on an IP talk page that would never be visited. As for the IP, if his incessant quacking continues we'll just have the page semi-protected. Dayewalker (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Er... I did (diff). Following that message, I thought it would be sensible to bring the matter up here because it seemed to be an issue with several IP editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just eradicated another affiliate link. It's weird that we have all this anonymous IP activity all of a sudden. If this sort of thing ramps up, we may have to consider requesting semi-protection. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Such few IP edits do not warrent semi protecting the article.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If the IP continues to try and disrupt the page, that will be a decision for an admin. Dayewalker (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Who says that anyone has tried to be disruptive? Ever heard of the term Assume good faith? Semi protection of this article isn't a decision for just any admin to randomly take.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My concern was chiefly about the sudden return of IP editors placing affiliate links in the article, which hadn't been happening for quite some time. Incidentally, an administrator is quite free to semi-protect an article without debate, if he/she perceives that it would be beneficial to the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost recommend Google G-Mail

The fact that DreamHost recommends gmail has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this article and completely surprises me that it is part of the article. They have their own mail client and this article is not an extension of their advertising campaign, blog or other means of promoting what they recommend or don't. If this was seriously addressed before, how did the powers that may be convince the retention of such a blatant attempt to insert a wholly self promoting addition of a DreamHost company recommendation?JavierMC 03:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Javier, will you please read the archives before making assumptions? That was added in in an attempt to make DreamHost look like they were too incompetent to handle email themselves, and the wording was hammered out over some time by the various parties. Advertising it's not, believe me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your the one making assumptions about me. It may not be strictly advertising Sarek, but what does it have to do with an article on DreamHost? What DreamHost recommends to it's clients is it's business, not the business of this encyclopedia. Whether DreamHost wants to farm out it's e-mailing to gmail to save themselves bandwidth and storage costs, this encyclopedia should not join in reiterating that policy. It has no benefit to the article other than to promote a DreamHost recommendation. Whether the wording was hammered out previously or not, I still believe it of no value to the article in achieving an understanding DreamHost.JavierMC 05:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is really a non-issue. JavierMC is right in saying that the Gmail stuff is irrelevant, but Sarek is right in saying that it was forced into the article at the behest of individuals wishing to make DreamHost seem incompetent. Let's move past all that and consider how best to revise the existing text. The company offers fully-featured and configurable email services, but although not all hosting companies do this, it is by no means unusual (or particularly notable). Anyone got any ideas? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Javier, I really have no problem with taking this out as irrelevant: I just have a problem with taking it out as advertising. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm kinda confused that you solely picked up on the advertising portion of my statement, considering I said ...article is not an extension of their advertising campaign, blog or other means of promoting what they recommend or don't. My point was that because DreamHost recommends something, doesn't necessary make it noteworthy for inclusion in their wiki article.JavierMC 16:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Again: the only reason this was added was to make DreamHost look like they were too incompetent to handle email. If you want to take it out because it's irrelevant to the article, be my guest -- but if you want to take it out because you think its intention is to promote DreamHost, you are incorrect, and it should stay.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant, especially for the lead. Dayewalker (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove it, chaps. Way too many words expended on this minor issue created by now-retired user. Other matters (various proposals for changes to the text) above that need attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I sorta have a problem with all these accusations of bad faith edits, I don't think that they are really appropriate, if we could possibly skip them from now on then that would just simply be great, thanks.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As part of your desire to avoid personal attacks going forward, would you be willing to agree to drop the archive period from 45 days down to 28?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Inlight of opinions expressed by other editors I have changed my position and now support an archive period of 90 days.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Tasks

I've added a "to do" list to the top of this discussion page to help with focus. Feel free to edit, but please don't make this another target for edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

Please note that the DreamHost case at ArbCom has been declined. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

NODRAMA

Anybody care to join me next week in The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Subscribed. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Count me in.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally, this would seem to be the place to post a picture of a kitten. However, since I just spotted the score to In C that I keep forgetting to take home, I'll link to this instead. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Free application hosting (2nd proposal)

I'd like to revisit an earlier proposal that suggested the addition of something about the DreamHost Apps service, which is both notable and unusual. I initially proposed this text:

Free application hosting

In 2009, the company began offering free web application hosting. Either with their own domain, or with a free subdomain, customers are able to make use of a number of open source applications, such as WordPress and MediaWiki without charge. The service is similar to, and can be integrated with, the Google App Engine. Through a control panel, customers are able to manage their applications or upgrade to the standard, fully-managed hosting service.

The initial proposal of this section attracted some objections that weren't policy-based, but there were no other comments (either positive or negative). I'd like to hear some opinions about the prose, and about whether or not it is an appropriate addition. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose per my previous objections and the objections of others, please don't waste any more of our time with this thanks.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, you have made no policy-based objections. How is proposing an improvement to an article a "waste of time" exactly? Please assume good faith and cease tendentiously objecting to every single suggestion for improvement I make. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you're not suggesting that any improvement be made. Also don't give me this "policy based" crap ever again thank you.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not "crap". Misplaced Pages policy determines whether or not something should be in an article, not your opinion. You are free to object to a proposal on whatever grounds you wish, but if your objection is not based on Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines it is essentially irrelevant. So if you are determined to see this excluded, you will need to find policy-based reasons. If you object to just some part of the proposal, or how it is written, I urge you to proffer your own version. Perhaps it will form the basis of a compromise that everyone can be happy with. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note on 194x144x90x118's user talk page in regard to his conduct on this page. PhilKnight (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you decided not to discuss this matter with me further on your talkpage despite my effort to discuss it with you I am hereby Recjecting! your note regarding my conduct and any and all warnings that have been made by you regarding this matter. A one sided conversation simply doesn't work.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of interest

There has been no apparent interest in expressing opinions or commenting on the recent proposals that have been made. To recap, the following is under consideration:

1. Minor changes to "incidents" section.
2. Addition of a section on application hosting.
3. Removal or evolution of the Gmail mention.
4. Removal of the POV "badge of shame" tag.

There was also a suggestion that the auto-archiving period be reduced to 28 days, but the lack of activity on this talk page seems to make that suggestion redundant at the moment. If there aren't any reasonable objections, I plan to boldly implement these changes in the near future. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

More tedious editing from Scjessey, as far as I am concerned you have forgone your right to edit this article with your behavior. If you continue down this path then I will initiate a procedure that will lead to further editing restrictions being levied upon you, just leave this to others.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely "going down this path", so I strongly recommend that you "initiate a procedure" immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've lost count of the number of times 194x has threatened to "initiate procedures" without following through. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the proposed changes per WP:BRD. I'm quite happy to discuss them with other editors who disagree with them, but I would respectfully request that no edit warring takes place. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, last time someone "initiated procedures" it backfired. Arbcom declined their case, and they retired rather than agree to an admin's request they stop harassing another editor. Dayewalker (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I initiated that case, not Judas.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I stand corrected, then. Dayewalker (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the article after 194 reverted all of my edits without explanation. If anyone has reasonable objections to the changes, I would hope they would be voiced here instead of initiating an edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Weak

Wow. I don't even know what to say. It's like the old article went bankrupt, shirked it's Wiki responsibilities and was rewritten by a PR firm.Spiney deluxe (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Responding to deleted post about "trademarked service" -- umm, if we don't mention notable services, we're left with a directory entry, which Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT. Now, if you want to make constructive suggestions, feel free, but we're sick and tired of being called company shills. Edit usefully, or shut up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

agree with the questionable SPA. this article has been bullied into submission and now is just a big pile of advertising. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The article describes the company, and what it does. It also documents notable problems. I cannot see how it could possibly be described as "advertising". An example of advertising would be: "DreamHost is the most bestest host in the world EVAR! Sign up with promocode NULL1SECUNDUS for an unbeatable deal that includes 2 free babies from Eritrea!" There is nothing like that in the article (joking aside). If you have any policy-based concerns about specific parts of the article, please bring them up here. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

More disruptive behavior from Sarekofvulcan, Surprising.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

you are right jessey, that would be an example of outlandish advertising. here is another: if the article has two separate sections titled "Free application hosting" and "File hosting," which are not notable features of the webhost, but more so blatantly free advertising of their non-notable services. i believe that a neutral, unbiased, and uninvolved editor would agree. perhaps some outside input would be warranted Theserialcomma (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe there are multiple sources talking about their file hosting services, meeting the GNG, and hence a notable feature.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

False. http://www.genbeta.com/web/files-forever-nuevo-servicio-de-dreamhost is not a reliable source. it's a blog. if it's such a notable feature, there would be a third party reliable source, right? somewhere? just one? please? No. just a blog - in spanish, at that. the fact that you'd argue for inclusion, arguing 'notability' of the feature, based on a single spanish-language blog, is insane. i am done arguing here. good luck to anyone else attempting to fix this article's slant Theserialcomma (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If I linked to TechCrunch, would you also say that was "just a blog"? If not, then how do you establish that GenBeta is not the Spanish-language equivalent? Given the number of sites that link to/quote it, it does seem to be a notable tech blog. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Alexa, it has a traffic rank of 15,631, which is well above the 100,000 number for unreliable ranking, according to Search engine test. (Techcrunch is at 700-something, fwiw.) So, it doesn't seem to be "just another blog". And while I may question my own sanity, I prefer that other editors not do the same -- at least in print, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here's a list of 20 major tech blogs in Spanish. http://www.latin3g.com/entry/20-technology-blogs-spanish-you-cannot-avoid-hearing-about I checked the Alexa ranks of most of them, and Genbeta.com has the second highest, so it would appear my assessment is roughly on track. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Save the rhetoric- your words just don't matter. It's your behavior, for years at this point, that renders your agenda entirely obviously commercial. You summon a reaction like this from so many people, instantaneously. Your behavior is dead wrong and you've totally outlasted me congratulations- I'm not gonna spell it out again like I did in my previous dissertation that somehow just evaporated from this discussion page. I hope your[REDACTED] piracy pays off for you and you enjoy your crap $5 commissions from this crap company. Spiney deluxe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

It should also be noted that this feature was described on Icelands 38th most read tech BLOG!!!!!! and yes that little bit of text written there on that blog what 200 words in a language that you guys don't understand? surely establishes notability. Ohhh yeah it's also really welcoming to tell a newcomer on his 50th edit to "shut up".--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Penalva, Javier. "Files Forever, nuevo servicio de DreamHost" (in ). Genbeta. Retrieved 2009-07-01.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
2. Jones, Josh. "Files Forever: Revision as of 20:37, 29 November 2006". DreamHost Wiki. DreamHost. Retrieved 2009-07-01.
3. "DreamHost: Files Forever". Retrieved 2009-07-04.
4. Penalva, Javier. "Files Forever, nuevo servicio de DreamHost" (in ). Genbeta. Retrieved 2009-07-01.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
5. "DreamHost: Files Forever". Retrieved 2009-07-04.
6. Jones, Josh. "Files Forever: Revision as of 20:37, 29 November 2006". DreamHost Wiki. DreamHost. Retrieved 2009-07-01.
7. "MySpace Outage Pinpointed at LA Telecom Building". Netcraft. July 25, 2006. Retrieved 2009-04-05.
8. Miller, Rich (August 2, 2006). "LA Hosting Providers Slowed by Power Problems". Netcraft. Retrieved 2009-04-05.
9. Eagle, Liam (August 16, 2006). "Customers Rally Around DreamHost". Web Host Industry Review. Retrieved 2009-04-08.
10. Miller, Rich (August 2, 2006). "Power Woes Continue at LA's Garland Building". Data Center Knowledge. Retrieved 2009-04-08.
11. Miller, Rich (July 13, 2007). "Power Capacity Issues at DreamHost". Data Center Knowledge. Retrieved 2009-04-08.
12. Leyden, John (June 7, 2007). "Hackers load malware onto Mercury music award site". The Register. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
13. Miller, Rich (June 6, 2007). "Mass Customer Site Hack at DreamHost". Netcraft. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
14. "iFrame used to spread Malware on prominent Legal and Music sites including Clintons and the Nationwide Mercury Prize". ScanSafe. 2007. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
15. ^ Cite error: The named reference perez was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
16. ^ Sparkes, Matthew (January 17, 2008). "Typo causes $7,500,000 mistake". PC Pro. Retrieved 2008-01-19.
17. ^ Jones, Josh (January 17, 2008). "The Final Update". DreamHost. Retrieved 2008-01-18.
18. "MySpace Outage Pinpointed at LA Telecom Building". Netcraft. July 25, 2006. Retrieved 2009-04-05.
19. Miller, Rich (August 2, 2006). "LA Hosting Providers Slowed by Power Problems". Netcraft. Retrieved 2009-04-05.
20. Leyden, John (June 7, 2007). "Hackers load malware onto Mercury music award site". The Register. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
21. Miller, Rich (June 6, 2007). "Mass Customer Site Hack at DreamHost". Netcraft. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
22. "iFrame used to spread Malware on prominent Legal and Music sites including Clintons and the Nationwide Mercury Prize". ScanSafe. 2007. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
23. "MySpace Outage Pinpointed at LA Telecom Building". Netcraft. July 25, 2006. Retrieved 2009-04-05.
24. Miller, Rich (August 2, 2006). "LA Hosting Providers Slowed by Power Problems". Netcraft. Retrieved 2009-04-05.
25. Leyden, John (June 7, 2007). "Hackers load malware onto Mercury music award site". The Register. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
26. Miller, Rich (June 6, 2007). "Mass Customer Site Hack at DreamHost". Netcraft. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
27. "iFrame used to spread Malware on prominent Legal and Music sites including Clintons and the Nationwide Mercury Prize". ScanSafe. 2007. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
28. "MySpace Outage Pinpointed at LA Telecom Building". Netcraft. July 25, 2006. Retrieved 2009-04-05.
29. Miller, Rich (August 2, 2006). "LA Hosting Providers Slowed by Power Problems". Netcraft. Retrieved 2009-04-05.
30. Miller, Rich (July 13, 2007). "Power Capacity Issues at DreamHost". Data Center Knowledge. Retrieved 2009-04-08.
31. Leyden, John (June 7, 2007). "Hackers load malware onto Mercury music award site". The Register. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
32. Miller, Rich (June 6, 2007). "Mass Customer Site Hack at DreamHost". Netcraft. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
33. "iFrame used to spread Malware on prominent Legal and Music sites including Clintons and the Nationwide Mercury Prize". ScanSafe. 2007. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
34. "MySpace Outage Pinpointed at LA Telecom Building". Netcraft. July 25, 2006. Retrieved 2009-04-05.
35. Miller, Rich (August 2, 2006). "LA Hosting Providers Slowed by Power Problems". Netcraft. Retrieved 2009-04-05.
36. Leyden, John (June 7, 2007). "Hackers load malware onto Mercury music award site". The Register. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
37. Miller, Rich (June 6, 2007). "Mass Customer Site Hack at DreamHost". Netcraft. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
38. "iFrame used to spread Malware on prominent Legal and Music sites including Clintons and the Nationwide Mercury Prize". ScanSafe. 2007. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
39. "MySpace Outage Pinpointed at LA Telecom Building". Netcraft. July 25, 2006. Retrieved 2009-04-05.
40. Miller, Rich (August 2, 2006). "LA Hosting Providers Slowed by Power Problems". Netcraft. Retrieved 2009-04-05.
41. Leyden, John (June 7, 2007). "Hackers load malware onto Mercury music award site". The Register. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
42. Miller, Rich (June 6, 2007). "Mass Customer Site Hack at DreamHost". Netcraft. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
43. "iFrame used to spread Malware on prominent Legal and Music sites including Clintons and the Nationwide Mercury Prize". ScanSafe. 2007. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
44. ^ Lee, Justin (January 9, 2009). "DreamHost Offers Free Apps Hosting Service". The Web Host Industry Review. Retrieved 2009-06-26.

• Unassessed company articles
• Unknown-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists