Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:37, 27 January 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Web Sheriff 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, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

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

Template:Findnotice

NPOV and being careful about linking piracy to sales impact

While I removed the most egregious example, there's a number of statements in the article that links Web Sheriff's activities (or piracy in general) to sales impacts or the success of albums. We need to be careful not to imply that piracy reduces sales or that reducing piracy increases sales, or that there was any impact at all unless we're citing specific references and phrasing it like "Web Sheriff CLAIMS that removing the leaked copies helped album sales." Alereon (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

hum... I went through a while back and removed most of those, I guess it needs to be done. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Alereon: Well, you have explained how the article needs to be worded in instances where reliably sourced material is used to give information on the company and on its work (which, of course, is what the article should be written about). Common sense sometimes interferes in the writing process and the information given unintentionally could be or is perceived as an NPOV problem. I will be more careful to make sure that the information that I write in the article - if it has any positive connotations towards the company's anti-piracy work - will give the source as a quote or will identify who believes the information to be true. I have intended to go over the article in more depth, because recently with all the quick editing, some of the references have become misplaced and so perhaps the article is not now properly sourced. I will work to see that it is and thank you for your explanation of the phrasing needed in this article. All the best, Agadant (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Started working on sourcing, linking and wording today. The description section sources need a lot of work as far as checking them out and it needs to be broken into two sections with an operating methods section as was previously discussed. I'll try to concentrate on it to get it done as quickly as time permits. Agadant (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Even yet although I posted my intentions and asked for time to clean up sources

I haven't had time to go through the sources as that was so time-consuming and with the holidays, there wasn't time. But I see that the interest in this article is so high, that time wasn't allowed and another editor was in a hurry to zap it again... I will clean it up when I get time... at one time this article was very well sourced but after a free for all with no consideration of moving sources and changing text next to them for over a month, the article and WP was the worse for it and my hard work is disregarded. Agadant (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is really unfortunate when I really look closer... in only 80 minutes time, 19 or so edits were made removing 8 sources and about 3,000 bytes of content. Editing an article is not making quick deletions of information we personally may not like. It is about improving articles for the interest of the readers. Misplaced Pages is a volunteer project with every sentence written requiring a lot of freely given time. For another editor's time to be so disrespected is hard for me to understand. Agadant (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

These edits and removal of a lot of information from this article that is not POV and was reliably sourced are really bold and against policy. Very little of it was new material, but left in place as of Sept. 9, 2011, with Aprock being one of the deleting editors at that time. The removal of reliably sourced and non-contentious information damages the readability of the article.

• (Edit summary: remove trivial content) The Prince fans fighting back can only be considered as NPOV material. Why anyone would seek to remove it, is unexplanable. It was left in the article when the deleting editors left as of 9-10-11, when HelloannYong made a final abrupt edit that ended the discussion on the deletions of the article. last entry -last version on 9-09-11
• (Edit summary: remove content not supported by source) I have provided a source.
• (Edit summary: correct to source) The correction made is actually inaccurate according to the source. I have provided a note for the source material.
• (Edit summary: correct to source, ce) There are two sources for the entry. The second one was disregarded, it seems, perhaps because it is not viewable to the editor. I have provided a note with the source material and also another new reference.
• (Edit summary: WP:NOTNEWS) A reference was furnished from a Russian news source. It is news for the subject of the article.
• (Edit summary: clean up, correct to source) Every thing in the write-up is supported by the 2 sources. The word "immediately" is implied but not given. I will take it out. Does the editor not assume good faith and remove all material that he can not immediately verify from very reliable sources that are not available online at this time?
• (Edit summary: no a reliable source for this info) The source that this editor removed was which gave the news of Universal's removal of the site again the next year but gave the info at end: "Martin," the founder and operator of RLSLOG, told TorrentFreak he is looking for a new hosting company for the site, which was also taken offline last year following complaints from anti-piracy firm Web Sheriff." This was provided to back up the other source.
• (Edit summary: remove blog content, site is still up) This entry passed through the month long free-for- all editing by 8 or 9 editors. It is in HISTORY section, therefore should not be required to have a present and future effect. Definition of history: "A usually chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events."
• (Edit summary: this article is still a mess) After the month long siege, plus this new one: the article is still a mess? Coming from this editor who has been very careless in reading sources and spelling even, this tagging and comment is bold. But, I will go through the entire article as I posted and check references, as all the other editors have only "very hastily" removed content - either removing sources or leaving them out of place.
• (Edit summary: copy edit, clean up) Removed the sentence that the new channel was a success that was cited to Web Sheriff, as the uninvolved editor demanded or requested above.
• (Edit summary:WP:NOTNEWS - removed the entire entry about Qtrax. Perhaps it isn't national news but it is news to the history of the subject company and to Qtrax. NOTE: This entry also was left in by the editors during the month long deletions. If it was so much out of place, it would have and should have been deleted then.
• (Edit summary: clean up, sync, tighten) This entry was posted for review 2 months before I posted it here. There were several editors still actively involved in discussion at that time and no one objected to the entry as I wrote it, so I posted it after 2 months went by. Removing interesting information from the article and the readers is not "sync, tightening," but harming the readability of the article and as more of these subjective deletions are made, the article is becoming exceedingly boring and unusable to the reader. Surely, this is not intentional. - I will Assume Good Faith, here.
• (Edit summary: remove redundant) Editor removed the name Nick Bracegirdle, (?) who was mentioned by name in both sources.
• (Edit summary: remove trivia not related to Web Sheriff) Editor removed info that added more clarity to the entry and would be of interest to the reader. Agadant (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all you seem to be saying here is that you are the only one qualified to evaluate and edit the article. Most of your objections do not conform to policy, and appear to indicate problems with WP:OWN. aprock (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect you to say any different, but that doesn't make it true. You previously edited the article to your heart's content, followed by several other deleting, tagging and accusatory editors. So you come back a few months after the siege and delete a lot of the content deemed NPOV by the editors who definitely felt they were qualified to evaluate and edit the article (yourself included) and in fact removed half of it (all reliably sourced too). The content about Lady Gaga and Nick Bracegirdle I had put up on the talk page at that time for approval and not one editor objected. here here Cameron Scott helped with a correction as a matter of fact. here I only put the new material in the article 2 months later 10-27-11 (fair enough time for objections, I would think. So why didn't you object to it then or make any of your other deletions at that time? You are the one who is not conforming to policy and have a problem with WP:OWN here as well as VQuakr, as it seems he also has returned for more accusations against me. They always say: "The best defense is a strong offense" so I've been run over here quite a bit. Agadant (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you feel changes I made require wider community consensus, and cannot happen because there may have been some previous consensus. Suffice it to say, this is not how[REDACTED] works. aprock (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes you made were not justified by the edit summaries that you posted either. I carefully went over them above and with no animosity towards you. (As I have none now, either.) That is how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Progress can not be made or consensus reached to make improvements to the article when only more deletions are considered! Please don't forget that I am an experienced editor with almost 12,000 edits and over 5 years creating articles or adding content and sources to them. Agadant (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we disagree about whether or not my edits were justified. When unwarranted material is in an article, deletion is certainly a path to progress. aprock (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Aprock, this article got limited to just a few sections. Even Keithbob (who btw, made 100 edits to the Prince article in the past making him the 3rd largest contributor there) approved of a history section although he did make deletions to it. Prince stuff too, I don't know - I'll check it out! I think it is not out of order to include whatever material can be found history-wise by googling reliable sources. How else can we judge what an article should contain? Agadant (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is not out of order to include whatever material can be found history-wise by googling reliable sources., On the contrary, just because something can be found in a reliable source does not mean it merits inclusion. I suspect this misunderstanding of policy may be close to the heart of the problem here. The most significant problem with the article is that most of the content comes from interviews with WebSheriff representatives, creating a significant problem with WP:UNDUE, and producing what looks to be a promotional page for the company. aprock (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

John Giacobbi, always the one interviewed as far as I have seen, is the company spokesman as well as manager and if the newspaper, or magazine want to write about the company they must often ask for comments from him or interview him. That is not out of the ordinary for this kind of company, I'm sure. Most larger companies have PR departments who give the information to the newspapers or magazines. But when a company spokesman who also runs the company comments, they quote him. It's not like a musician who puts out albums to be reviewed and we can get info from them about the album or charting history for the article. I have written on biographies and read many and much of the content comes from the subject and is considered reliable if the sources are, otherwise we would be branding them a liar. And if we quote when it applies, as they say WP:Verifiability is what counts, not truth. On the other point you raise, how else can the history section be compiled? I don't and you don't know the history of the company and what they have been involved in except if you or I read reliable sourced material. That is so true of any subject that concerns people but not with scientific topics, etc. Agadant (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with quoting the company spokesman. There is something wrong with basing an entire article solely on interviews with the company spokesman. As noted above this is not and issue of WP:V, but one of WP:UNDUE. aprock (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite an exaggeration and a new claim, at that! As long as you keep coming up with new rules for this article and making WP:UNDUE charges against the content, you look like the expert! But I actually have much more real editing time putting content into articles and have a good idea of what is proper and not and policy rules, although I don't usually pull them out to make a point as it is just conjecture and chest thumping to say "I am the only one who follows the rules here." Agadant (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems with undue weight are discussed in the archive parges by multiple editors: . This is not a new issue, and WP:NPOV (of which WP:UNDUE is a part) is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS and applies to all[REDACTED] articles. aprock (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again an exaggeration! - Three times in 3 huge achives filled with much talk, accusations and not necessarily anything much but personal opinions and conjecture. The WP:UNDUE were regarding different matters than the fact that this article uses reliable sources in some cases that consist of interviews to source information on the company such as operating methods, how the company was started, etc. Who better than the managing director to give accurate information to reliable sources who are depended on to check it out? Primary sources that could have given a description of the work the company does, etc. were censored from this article. (Policy does not state they cannot be used ever.) But they were not allowed here! Alereon demanded or stated that information had to be attributed which makes the company's name and the spokesman's name appear more often than I originally edited into the article. I will make a list of all the normally allowed sections and information that have been censored from this article. And now you want to censor the company's spokesman's comments and information given to very reliable sources? What next? Agadant (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no exaggeration. aprock (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Starting to check sources - line by line

I've starting checking sources line by line for this article. I hope other editors will respect how time-consuming this process is and not make changes in the meantime based on the current sourcing for the article. It was well sourced - at one time and I will do my best to see that it is again. Agadant (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As seems to be some issues related to WP:OWN and allowing other contributers to clean up the article, I've tagged it for the problems that are on it. aprock (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not WP:OWN just WP:FAIRNESS. Per your latest edit once again (?) removing this IMO rather innocuous line: the source was reliable (Rolling Stone) and the content was sourced therein: LINE REMOVED: "Numerous unauthorized overseas online sites selling merchandise featuring Prince were shut down." Source states: "Web Sheriffâ's president John Giacobbi, who has wiped off 2,000 illegally uploaded videos from YouTube and shut down about 300 eBay auctions, as well as multiple overseas sites selling unauthorized merchandise." Why do you say it was not sourced?

The article was already "so-called" cleaned up by other editors in July, August, September. I have mostly just added approved content and sourced it again after it was so deplorably messed up. Any self-respecting editor would do the same. That's not ownership, just respect for what Misplaced Pages represents. Agadant (talk)

WP:FAIRNESS is not a policy, with good reason. To recap a section of WP:OWN:

1. An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include the routine correction of egregious formatting errors.)

I have not done either of these. Agadant (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Justified article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.

I have not reverted any "justified" article changes. But you, of course, can claim justified to any changes made here. Justified can be very subjective. Agadant (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

1. An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it (see Nos. 1 and 2 just below).

I haven't done this but it has been done to me. Agadant (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Putting your name into the article as the author. Since no one "owns" any Misplaced Pages content, content should not be signed. The exact contributions of all editors are seen with their names on the page history. On the other hand, when adding comments, questions, or votes to talk pages, it is good to "own" your text, so the best practice is to sign it by suffixing your entry with "~~~~".

I have not done this. Agadant (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion we have seen a long history of examples #1 and #2 from User:Agadant on this article very clearly violating WP:OWN, that has resulted in driving away other editors and stagnating attempts at improving this article. VQuakr (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For one thing, what do you mean putting my name into the article as the author? Where did I sign content? If I did it was a mistake. I know better than that!!!! Agadant (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I copied the entire subsection to avoid overlimiting my quote, but as I stated above #1 and #2 and the items I consider applicable here. VQuakr (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the above apply to my editing on this article and it is misleading of you to say that it does. I am the only editor who has ever improved this article except SilkTork who tried to help but was too limited in time and too opposed by Keithbob and others and I'm sure was discouraged by that. Show me some other improvements? There has been only deletions, tagging and dumbing down by the others. I have complied with suggestions by others such as Alereon above and did not oppose his edit. You and the others constantly make me look like the BAD GUY in any ways that you can. I've written some good articles on WP and several are GA. So are you really being fair and impartial to make me look so bad because I found this company interesting and wanted to work on the article here? Agadant (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversial article?

Per the recent events: SOPA initiative Agadant (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This section was removed by VQuakr. WHY?

This does have a bearing on improving the article as it shows that the article may be held hostage due to POV factors pertaining to these recent events. The very removal of this section shows POV on the part of the removing editor. Agadant (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I gave a reason (sans caps) in my edit summary.

As a UK-based company that obviously predates the proposed American legislation, I am having trouble seeing the connection here. Yes, intellectual-property enforcement can be controversial; what specific improvements to the article do you hope to make with this section on the talk page? VQuakr (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

IMO you wouldn't have removed it, if it wasn't in some way a sensitive issue. The article can not be improved if there is a cabal of POV editors who keep tagging it and removing sourced NPOV material or else rewording it in a very substandard manner. Agadant (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC:

Yes, the company is UK based but most of their clients, according to what has been written, are US based. (But the US connection was taken out of article some time ago during the great deletion sessions.) Probably anyone who ever watches YouTube has been affected by videos removed by the company for its clients. I have myself even and was a little upset for awhile but being angry and revengeful is not my nature. Agadant (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

To repeat, what specific improvements to the article do you hope to make with this section on the talk page? VQuakr (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What specific improvements do you hope to make by tagging the article as POV and AN ADVERT and saying that I exhibit WP:OWN? Other than trying to discredit my editing and delete and remove sourced and NPOV material and why are you so very interested in this article? To keep returning and hold it hostage with tagging and always consensus with all deletions. I know why I am... before I even thought clearly about how controversial the company was, I had already invested a lot of my free time in research and editing. And always have done my very best to only present the article in a NPOV manner. I have nothing vested here but my reputation and my own valuable, unremunerated free time. And I have given the same to many other articles, without regret, but none of the others has received this treatment of me or the article.

Ok, third attempt. You started a section in which I could not see was in any way related to discussing improvements to the article, so I boldly removed it. You objected, so here we are. What specific improvements to the article do you hope to make with this section on the talk page? VQuakr (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are really determined to get this section off here with first a complete removal and now pursuing an harassment (meaning annoyance) of me about it. Why, because you were NO. 75 to sign for a blackout against the bill among thousands? I don't make a judgment on your voting, but I do make a judgement on you claiming to be a neutral editor here. You should recuse yourself and stop making charges against my neutrality and accusing me of WP:OWN. Agadant (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If after rereading the harassment policy and in particular WP:HA#NOT you still feel that the accusation is well founded, please report it to the appropriate noticeboard. Otherwise please consider striking out the accusation. VQuakr (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't make a habit of reporting people, it causes grief on all sides and is largely a very destructive waste of everyone's time! AND anyway, I meant the common usage of "annoy" and "tire out" and not the WP definition (I didn't know that existed.) I don't know how to strike-out. If you want to show me by doing it through the word, then I will know next time. Agadant (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

To address your other concerns, I assure you that my support of the Jan 18 blackout does not so cloud my POV that I would need to recuse myself from involvement with an article about a company in another country regardless of their business model, and have no intention of recusing myself (unless a consensus emerges that I should do so). Do you believe the other ~thousand editors that !voted must have too strong of POV to edit an article peripherally related to copyrights? What about editors that opposed a blackout? Surely their POV must be just as severe? VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What worries me the most about your interest in this article and makes me consider that you have a bias is that you never make any constructive suggestions to make it a better article. And yet, you show a considerable interest in the article. (like a personal interest - I don't know) You just want to make charges against me that I exhibit WP:OWN. Well, you can say that all day and night, and the article won't improve. Unless you think by improvement, leaving it tagged and running me off of it would give it a rightful appearance in the WP? I don't know what your intentions are here... since I am the only editor that originates content that actually makes it more interesting and informative, if you can give me some ideas on how you think I should present them, even like Alereon did above - although taking his advice opened me up to aprock saying too many mentions of the Web Sheriff were made. This article definitely receives an unusual amount of negative comments and deletions that no article that I have worked on or created ever have, so I don't take that burden on myself - that it is just my POV style of editing. It is the controversial nature of the company's work and that doesn't seem a fair application of WP policies to me. I notice that you or aprock don't write content on any (or many) articles, (we all have our work preferences, that's fine), so if you want to give me ideas on how I can write this article to please the naysayers (I'm not talking about any more deletions, there's been enough of that) I would greatly appreciate any advice. Agadant (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear why someone might tag an article with specific concerns. It's because the article in question has specific problems which need to be remedied. With respect to your editing behavior, there is a clear consensus that you've been exhibiting problematic editing on this article. If this can't be resolved on the talk page, wider involvement should be pursued. aprock (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that I should not, according to you and VQuakr, even comment on the talk page? Is this a threat? Why can I not express myself about the article's direction going downhill, and only downhill? What is the problematic editing I have done? Other than the clean-up to the article that it was tagged for and for restoring reliable sources again. As an experienced editor, I considered your deletions for a week or more and could not in any stretch believe that they were justified. Especially as they occurred 4 months after the NPOV discussion was over and done and you deleted content that was left in at that time or that I posted for review during the NPOV discussion, or should I say mostly article deletions. Because I am outnumbered, I am to be considered in the wrong and not allowed to edit or even discuss contentious "issues" on the talk page? This is a show of power of numbers and is it meant to be intimidating? Surely not... that would not be fair. I have done nothing wrong but not edit this article in a negative manner. I do not edit ever in a negative manner! I feel it is harmful to one's health and daily life - just my opinion. Agadant (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not making much sense here. No one suggested that you not comment on the talk page. In fact, there was an explicit suggestion that this be resolved on this talk page. aprock (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, then why do you or Vquakr anyway, object to this section as I feel like it may be an issue in editing this article and always has been. You can see from the edit history that hardly anyone has ever edited it in 5 or 6 years time except me, the vandals and you guys, during the NPOV discussion and since. Sometimes a BOT shows up and sometimes some fearless soul comes by and makes a few helpful edits to clean-up refs or something but that's about all. It's almost always only negativity that I see here and that is not true on other articles I have edited. It is controversial and everyone involved that wants to contribute here needs to consider whether they are biased and if so, if they can edit neutrally regardless. I feel like I can and have and would be open to any discussion about content and how to improve it - enough has been looked at by many eyes already and I feel like any NPOV issues were resolved - but not with the policy of improving but deleting sourced content that I spent a lot of time compiling. Do you want to talk about improving the article with good writing and content or just more deletions? Agadant (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If by "you guys" you mean everyone that has made good faith edits to the article besides yourself, then I 100% agree with you that the onlypeople that have edited the article are the people who have edited the article. This is not, however, a particularly meaningful argument. What you seem to be saying is that anyone who disagrees with you about the content of this article must be editing from a non-neutral POV, which is:

1. Bunk.
2. An example of article ownership.

In cases where a single editor seems to be fighting everyone else, the problem is rarely with everyone else. VQuakr (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Bunk. In the case of a controversial article about an anti-piracy company, esp. at this point in time, it may show a lack of neutrality against the company and the main editor of the article. SilkTork, a very respected admin and committee member, who didn't edit but who tried to form a collaborative effort for improvement to the article, felt the editing had gone too far and parts of the article should be restored and balanced but he was opposed by Keithbob. Another editor from NPOV showed up and took off many tags plastered all over the article, but was quickly reverted. So any efforts made in good faith to participate and not just delete were thwarted and fought against as mine are. Agadant (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the problems you describe here are exactly related to the fact that the article reads like a puff piece from someone associated with the company. aprock (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you just going to keep saying that? I could go on any GA or FA article on WP practically (especially musicians) and say the same if I wanted to delete content. The article was already slammed as a puff piece (that's history) and 8 or 9 editors (I don't feel like counting) had their go at it. I have not made any new edits hardly at all since and have been very careful with wording. I have seen how much the views go up the day or two after I have edited so I know I am being watched and discussed. But still no matter how I go to extremes to not be branded POV or COI, you continue it. That makes it very easy to discredit everything I write here to say it's a puff piece... It definitely isn't. It is pared to the max and almost unusable to the reader. Agadant (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you just going to keep saying that?. Only as long as it is true. aprock (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's real conducive to working together and for improving the article! And I say it is true that your editing shows you are POV and biased against the company and make attacks against me to have your way with dumbing down the article and deleting it away. Cameron Scott, who was my worst critic to start with says he changed his mind about my editing and concluded I was doing an excellent job and says that some (are you included?) want to get me off the article! Here on My talkpage Agadant (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Censored from article - POV?

• All primary sources
• A list of clients except a few record labels in a footnote. (it is not against policy to have a client list)
• In the media section
• A description of how the company's name came about
• Information on the founder's background - One editor, at least, hoped to keep all mention of the founder from the article
• Any mention of charting success of client when using the company
• Number of employees
• fact that company has employees working shifts in a 24/7 work week
• Majority of clients are in US

Some of this is just really unexplainable except perhaps by the editors who enforced it during the NPOV deletions. This list is just off the top of my head - I know there are more. Agadant (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Unassessed company articles
• Unknown-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles