Misplaced Pages

Talk:DreamHost: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:24, 3 August 2009 editScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,029 edits Lack of interest: - plea not to edit war. Again.← Previous edit Revision as of 22:59, 6 August 2009 edit undo194x144x90x118 (talk | contribs)561 edits RejectedNext edit →
Line 432: Line 432:
::::It is not "crap". Misplaced Pages policy determines whether or not something should be in an article, not your ]. 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. -- ] (]) 12:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ::::It is not "crap". Misplaced Pages policy determines whether or not something should be in an article, not your ]. 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC) :::::I've left a note on 194x144x90x118's user talk page in regard to his conduct on this page. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 22:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


== Lack of interest == == Lack of interest ==

Revision as of 22:59, 6 August 2009

WikiProject iconCompanies Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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:

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.
Article policies
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 
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

To-do list for DreamHost: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2009-08-07

  • Decide on appropriate settings for automatic archiving.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8


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

Proposed AfD

AfD resulted in a keep.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


As discussed by Mysidia above (and others previously), there are questions whether this article meets minimum standards for being an article. Previous decisions (2) to not delete this article relied primarily on unreliable data (numbers of domains "hosted"), and support by DreamHost promoters. I agree with deleting this article. Should it be taken for another AfD? Judas278 (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I discussed this recently only to receive two answers one from you and a negative one, I suggest that we get an RfC on this particular matter and then take it from there. Thoughts?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussing whether you should have a discussion seems a bit redundant. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Sarek. This article would quickly survive a speedy delete or a PROD, if you feel like an AfD is necessary, file one. The opposing opinions on this page are well-documented, but if you believe other currently uninvolved wikipedia editors would agree the subject isn't notable enough for an article, file one. Discussing it with the usual suspects isn't going to do change anything. Dayewalker (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. File the AfD if you feel it is necessary. Also, please don't describe fellow editors as "DreamHost promoters". I've received blocks for far less. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Step One currently requires admin action to post the notice on this article. From above, it looks like we have the consensus needed for that notice. Judas278 (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can nominate and list an article for deletion. It does not require administrator action. You just need to wait until the page protection expires. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
And I don't think this sort of thing is at all appropriate either. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Proposed AfD Statement: This company is non-notable, they fail both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. It is nearly impossible to find reliable secondary sources (non-blog, non-forum) that demonstrate significant non-incidental, non-trivial coverage of DreamHost. 3 of 4 articles from the first deletion discussion are gone. Very few other Web hosting companies in the Category have articles. The primary reference, webhosting.info, supporting "notability" previously was deleted from this article for questionable reliability, and the "data" is likely skewed by Domain_tasting and domain parking.

I couldn't have put it any better myself, only other thing I can think of mentioning is the fact that Meatpuppets likely effected the outcomes of the previous AfD's something along the line of: It is likely that previous AfD's were effected by Meatpuppets, see 1 and 2.

Might be a good addition to the AfD and might not, if you see it as none beneficial then just let your suggested AfD rip.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested changes, Judas: it's irrelevant what happened to the other articles in the first AfD, so leave that out, but paste the original AfD link down here so the admin who posts for you can include it without having to hunt for it. "Data is likely skewed" -- speculation shouldn't be included in the AfD, so leave that out, too. Anything else, I'll challenge at the AfD, if necessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'd leave out 194x's "meatpuppetry" accusation -- that was then, this is now. Go on the merits, or not at all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
He can feel free to leave it out, include it or change it but if previous AfDs are supposed to be mentioned then it's also important to mention that they were likely "fixed". Also these are not accusations but admitted wrongdoings as you can see from THIS LINK!!!. Also I don't see anything wrong with this Skewed deal.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have a reference to establish that the data is incorrect, then show what it is -- otherwise, it's original research. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Conversely, the same original research, primary data, was quoted directly and indirectly from start to finish in the last deletion discussion, and is likely to play a part again. So I'm trying to address it from the start. I'd like to believe "currently uninvolved wikipedia editors" would decide the fate, but I know "supporters" or whatever I should call them will show up, as they have the last 2 times. Judas278 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Revised AfD Statement: This company is non-notable, they fail both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. It is nearly impossible to find reliable secondary sources (non-blog, non-forum) that demonstrate significant non-incidental, non-trivial coverage of DreamHost. Very few other Web hosting companies in the Web hosting Category have articles. In the most recent Deletion Discussion the primary source referenced to support "notability", webhosting.info, was deleted from this article for questionable reliability, as discussed here on the talk page. Further, this 'primary' source "data" is likely skewed by Domain_tasting and domain parking, as acknowledged by the source.

  • Thanks for the comments and suggestions, which I've tried to use. For now, someone else can run with it if desired. I recently observed Misplaced Pages likely taking useful action, and I'm waiting to see how that plays out here, as the edit block is again off. Should the article again be reduced to a poorly sourced "advertisement" this will only strengthen the case for deletion. Judas278 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
While I don't agree with the AfD statement as above, you've addressed my issues nicely, and I have no objection to the above wording.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for inappropriately bringing up that totally unrelated ArbCom process. You can rest assured that nothing happening at ArbCom will make any noticeable difference to my contributions here. You might as well go ahead and do the AfD nomination so that we can get that little waste of time out of the way and move forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Scjessey, are you saying that because you don't plan on violating one revert/week here, or because you don't think it applies?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The former. Despite what ArbCom seems to think, there is very little actual edit warring in my 10,000+ edit history. Having a one revert per week restriction won't make a noticeable difference to my editing behavior. This is especially so here because there are none of those ambiguous BLP-related reversions to cloud the issue. Also, the "must talk about reversion" rule won't change anything because that is part of my editing S.O.P. - that vast majority of my edits are in article talk because I prefer to fully discuss proposed changes before making them. As far as this article is concerned, it should be business as usual. So let's have at it, shall we? The opinions we have collected from non-involved editors have clearly confirmed our position that the current "incidents" section is too long and contains too much stuff of little significance. Perhaps my proposed changes previously discussed don't go far enough? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the above. Judas278 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Which part do you strongly disagree with? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(OD) I think we're veering off track again, this section was for discussing the upcoming AfD. I'd suggest that since a wording that everyone seemed to approve of was posted here two days ago, the AfD should be posted so we can be done with either a) this article, or b) this discussion. Incidental discussions don't belong here, and are just serving to prolong a non-productive thread. Dayewalker (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. AfD is posted. Judas278 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Free application hosting

The discussion going on at the AfD indicates a need for more information. I'd like to propose adding something about the DreamHost Apps service. Something like this, as a sub-section of the "web hosting" section, seems appropriate:

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.

I'd appreciate help with the proposed wording (reading it through, it seems like it might be a bit verbose) and any other refinement suggestions. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose This definitively does not belong in any way or any form in the article it comes across as spam or advertising and is highly inappropriate.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    Do you have any policy-based objections, or suggestions for improvement? Simply saying "strong oppose" to every single one of my proposals is extremely unhelpful, and not at all in the spirit of a collaborative project like Misplaced Pages. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The same information is already at linked articles: Web_hosting_service. It does not need detailed repeating in this article. This article does not need to contain every factoid three times. This article should not be an advertisement. See: Comparison_of_web_hosting_control_panels for plenty of similar panels. The panel here is nothing special, and doesn't need repeated mention and description. The interpretation of the source is biased - not mentioning "beta" status, limited availability, and probable future $50/year charge. Judas278 (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You know, Judas, if you oppose adding anything to the article, asserting it should be deleted for lack of content kind of lacks credibility.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Please try to assume good faith here, adding this material to the article isn't appropriate since offering this sort of service is almost standard for web hosting companies and it would be inappropriate to make this article look like an ad for dreamhost since wikipedia articles are not meant to serve that purpose.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It is no longer possible to assume good faith in the face of such blocking tactics. Clearly, this article needs improvement. More information about the company and its services can be culled from the reliable sources available, but if it is always described as "advertising" I am at a loss as to how to move forward productively. At what point does this tendentious opposition become unacceptable to the project? We've had mediation, and RfC and now a third AfD that all indicate that the article should be improved with more detail, but such improvement is being blocked. Administrator guidance would be extremely welcome. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
And I've yet to be given a policy-based reason why the proposed text is inappropriate. Unless someone can do that, I see no reason why I shouldn't just go ahead and add it, since that fits in with comments at the AfD. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
If you are unable to assume good faith and seeing good faith edits as blocking tactics then perhaps you should consider excusing yourself from the article for some time since if this article does indeed require attention and the material that you've mentioned then other editors will surely help it along and improve it without your involvement.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Saying "oppose" to every proposal, without being able to cite policy-based reasons for such opposition, is not "good faith" editing. It is tendentious opposition. I am attempting to improve the article, not block such attempts or collaborate on its hoped-for demise. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Collaborate might not have been the best word, I'm not English like you are and I'm never going to pay your Icesave loan EVER! but anyway back to the point I was merely asking that he discussed the AfD text with me nothing more and I see nothing wrong with having done so. I do not want to fight regarding anything really I am just trying to have a positive influence on the article. I genuinely think that adding that material would make the article sound too much like an advertisement and that doing so is therefor negative as for policy-based reasons well I am actually pretty sure that there do exist some policy based reasons for not having texts that looks like an advertisement or spam in an article but seeing as I am not the most veteran wikipedia editor around I don't know what it is and I haven't really devoted too much time looking for it. But here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information look at number 7 .--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing in the policy link you provided (although the link target is wrong) that prohibits the inclusion of the proposed text, and your belief that it makes it "sound too much like an advertisement" is not relevant here. The fact remains that it is absolutely essential to provide information that distinguishes one entity from another (in this case, one hosting company from another), and this is a perfect example. Otherwise you would have the ludicrous situation where all articles on web hosts (and anything else, for that matter) sound the same and are basically just brief summaries. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


(outdent) (My) proposal for adding mention of gmail took 2 sources to add one simple sentence. This proposal is to add a whole section and paragraph based on 1 source, without fairly representing what the source actually says. You must fairly represent what the sources say, good and bad, in balance. Judas278 (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterization. Your proposed addition framed the use of Gmail as if it was a "negative" thing. It needed to be changed for neutrality. In the case of the latest proposed text, we are (once again) talking about introducing non-controversial details that help distinguish this web host from others. The details about beta testing and pricing are now out of date, because the source dates back to the original announcement. Bear in mind that this is a proposed addition that can be refined, and we should not include details that we know to be false, even if the quality of the sources that can verify this isn't of the highest standard (DreamHost's own website, for example). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
My good friend Scjessey will you please listen to reason and calm yourself down. Almost all webhosting companies offer free application hosting and adding this text to the article would simply be absurd, most people already know what webhosting companies are and have to offer and if they don't then they should take a look at an article like http://en.wikipedia.org/Webhost not this one but if we were infact to add that text that you propose to this article then we would have to add that text to all webhosting articles and wikipedia it just simply isn't a directory or something meant for that sort of thing. If you are starting to lose your cool over this then just take a deep breath and give the matter some calm thought it's not like this is some big deal.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is patently false. FREE application hosting is extremely unusual for web hosts to offer. It is the sort of thing normally reserved for large companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple and internet service providers like Comcast. Your notion of it being offered by "almost all" web hosts is incorrect. Also, please do not use this talk page for making patronizing comments toward me - I am not your "friend" and I do not need you to be telling me how to behave. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Editor Restriction Discussion

Anybody who has seen this article history knows there have been several allegations of COI by a particular, very involved, editor. This section is to ask for advice and comment on the proper way for requesting formal Admin action. Judas278 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

SPAs don't generally get to pull that card, sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This talk page should not be used for meta discussions about who should and who shouldn't be editing. That being said, there are no "allegations" of a conflict of interest. I have consistently stated (including on my user page) that I am a DreamHost customer - I have never hidden this fact, so use of the word "allegations" indicates impropriety that does not exist. I also edit other articles concerning products and services that I use regularly, so what of it? What about the conflict of interest that a former, disgruntled customer has, who only edits this article? Clearly that is of far greater concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
As I said above when the discussion for the AfD seemed to go on, if you think you have a case, please file it in the correct place. Take it to ANI or file an RfC, but no lasting decision on an editor's behavior will be reached on an article talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that given Scjesseys history of uncivility, his obvious COI, the countless personal attacks in relation to this article and after this latest episode of inappropriate bot Abuse that yes he should definitely be restricted from participating in this article.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no bot abuse, as you recognize below that the consensus was for changing the archive time to 45 days.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The initial change of 45 days by Scjessey was done without any consensus and was repeated despite being reverted due to a lack of one. The fact that there does exist a consensus now doesn't mean that bot abuse didn't take place repeatedly despite warnings.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The bot only ran once on this article, so "repeatedly" is incorrect. And last time, there was a consensus against you, you just refused to recognize it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The bot only ran once but its setting was altered repeatedly without a consensus so repeatedly is QUITE correct. There never existed any consensus against the previous setting and claiming so is simply laughable.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
SheffieldSteel (admin) called for a shorter page. PhilKnight (mediator) agreed with a 45-day archive. And obviously, Scjessey and I supported periods shorter than that. Granted, 4 to (2 or 3) is not a consensus for 45 days, but neither is (2 or 3) to 4 a consensus for 90 days.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
If there are any more calls for me to be "restricted" by SPAs and anonymous editors, I shall have no choice but to use CAPITAL LETTERS and bold type to voice my objections! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
ARE YOU BUCKING FOR another! BLOCK????? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
CAPITAL LETTERS, bold type, italics, exclamation points! AND threats of blocks. Most impressive! I know when I'm beaten. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(OD)The problem here is making changes without discussing and getting agreement first. Scjessey recently made changes without discussing first: Addition and Change. While not "major" changes, they weren't agreed to. Judas278 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

News flash: uncontroversial edits don't need to be discussed first. Besides, WP:BRD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm quite happy to engage in a consensus-building discussion for anything that might possibly be construed as controversial, but neither of those edits would register on anybody's Controversialometer. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored archive

I have restored the absolutely necessary archiving of what was a ludicrously overlong talk page that was broken by 194 with this edit. Several editors have complained about this page being too long, and archiving is wholly appropriate and loses nothing. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I have added an option to the archiving template to make it easy for the archives to be searched. This should satisfy any claims about "censorship" or "truth suppression" or any other similar nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This is becoming quite tiresome. You have no business messing with the bots settings or archiving this discussion. There is a consensus in place for a 90 day automatic archive rate, that means that the bot and the bot alone is supposed to archive discussion on this talkpage according to that setting. If you disagree with the consensus then you can always try to build a new one for a shorter archive rate or for manual archiving what ever you'd want I guess but unless there is such a consensus in place it is highly inappropriate that you mess with these matters.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Your claim of "consensus" is complete nonsense. No such consensus exists, and there is no excuse for your highly disruptive behavior. This overlong talk page is making it extremely difficult for editors to contribute to this discussion, particularly those using small screen devices. The extension to the ridiculous 90-days was (instead of the default 7) was done without consensus in the first place, and administrators recommended a 45-day setting. Once again, your problematic behavior actively blocks productive contributions. Archiving is necessary, and the search box makes the entire archive easily accessible. I expect you to self-revert immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, it was the bot that performed the archiving. The bot and the bot alone. The setting of 90 days was preventing the archive from performing as intended. Your actions have created a duplicate in the archive, which means the archived material must be deleted from this talk page to fix the error. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Really, I don't understand the hubbub over the talk page, and keeping old discussions up three months past the date of the last comment. Since all the discussion began here, which is primarily between half a dozen editors, the talk page is over 279K, which is longer than the Barack Obama article and talk page combined. Why is it so important to have this much old information on a page that's at AfD? Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Obviously it isn't important. Especially when the archive is fully searchable and available to all. No logic in it whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't important to have this talk page Jumbo sized but what is however important is that the consensus regarding talk page archiving be respected or a new consensus be reached. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo it is clearly stated there that "NOTE: Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there." These alterations of the bots settings are therefor against policy and indeed DISRUPTIVE. If you can not respect the consensus regarding the bots archiving rate of this page then I suggest you go elsewhere.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

194x, other than current consensus apparently being for a 90 day archive, do you have a problem with the archives happening on a 45 day basis? I understand this is a contentious talk page, but I don't understand why a minor article needs 279K of talk page only archived every three months? Would there be a problem with archiving the page after the AfD (assuming it results in a keep, of course) is finished? Dayewalker (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, there is no "consensus" for a 90-day archive. 3 users (one of which is an SPA) want this overlong archive because of claims that shortening the page will "bury evidence" - obviously an unfounded notion. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
90 day archive is ridiculous: I just undid the restoration of the archived content. This page is finally manageable: leave it that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I support Sarek's changes. Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I also support Sarek's changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that's three regular editors -- sounds like we're well on the way to that new consensus you were asking for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) From what I've seen here and at the AfD, those who scramble and relocate the histories and comments do seem to want to obscure discussions. The length of this talk page, as compared with the Obama article, may have something to do with having editors in common. A quick steamroll does not consensus make. I support 90 days archive as I support one editor staying away as he said he would, as another way to a shorter talk page. Judas278 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I decided to withdraw for a while to take a break. Mediation, which for a short time seemed vaguely productive, brought be back to the article. What of it? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo it is clearly stated there that "NOTE: Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there." Considering this changing the archive rate without a consensus is obvious abuse of the bot and certainly not allowed.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not a policy. It's not even a guideline. It's just something written by the bot creator, so there is nothing to violate or abuse. Consensus has been established for a 45-day archiving period. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally support no automatic archiving of this talk page and would like to see automatic archiving disabled and archiving strictly left to uninvolved users that are likely to be unbiased when it comes to this article such as Dayewalker and Sheffieldsteel, provided that automatic archiving is disabled.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, problem with that is that you folks complained about manual archiving too. Given that no archiving scheme is going to actually make you happy, I see no reason not to go with "if it hasn't been touched in a month and a half, it's not important enough to stick in people's faces". Remember, talk pages are about the article, not the subject, so trying to keep negative information about the subject visible is a violation of the talk page guidelines. I'm not trying to hide anything here, because I'm perfectly capable of reading logs and archives to see what was said earlier.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
And by the way, Scjessey, 3 to 2 is not a "firmly established consensus".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Administrator SheffieldSteel complained about the talk page being too large, so one could safely assume support. Also, 194 might want to be mindful of WP:3RR. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit-conflict) Based on the size of the Talk page, some form of archiving is necessary. That said, my personal preference is for an automatic archiving scheme, since it requires no human intervention. In this case, a bot also has the advantage that it can't be claimed to be biased. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Third opinion: We don't really give 3Os for pages with five editors, but I'll chime in anyway. I'm with Sarek and Sheffield on this: automatic archiving is definitely needed. The 285k version of this page is incredibly long and unwieldy; it even breaks the style of the page (border on the left). 45 day automatic archiving seems like a reasonable solution. — HelloAnnyong 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

With a translatable opinion from Sheffield and the clearcut opinion of HelloAnnyong in place I am afraid that the consensus is against me for the time being so unless the consensus shifts directions I shall not revert the archiving that has taken place or the bots archive rate. But take this as a WARNING Sarek and Scjessey, if you guys EVER mess with the archiving of this page again without first establishing a consensus on how to do so then the matter WILL be taken further and complaints filed.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We established the consensus last time around, but you and Judas refused to recognize it, and we didn't push it. The file was much bigger now, though, so I couldn't let it remain as it was again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
There was no consensus established since the last discussion took place regarding this matter, what you and Scjessey did was obvious bot abuse and quite disruptive. You have been warned now, if you Ever touch the bot settings again without first establishing a consensus then it WILL! have consequences.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You're WELCOME! to try.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think "warnings" and "threats" of this kind are appropriate for Misplaced Pages. I have received blocks for far less - from Sarek, in fact! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Rackspace

So tell me, guys, when are you planning on taking all the uncited advertising out of Rackspace? Just curious... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadly it seems that I have my hands full with this article alone and won't be able to attend to Rackspace for some time, it is however possible that Judas will have some success in dealing with the disruptive actions of Scjessey and that could possibly free up time so that I could take a closer look at this Rackspace article that you're talking about.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop falsely claiming my actions are "disruptive". It sounds lame coming from someone who edit wars over archiving (diff1, diff2, diff3) and strongly opposes article improvement of any kind (diff1, diff2), preferring instead to collaborate on an article's demise (diff). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with 194x again. You both (Sarek and Scjessey) do seem disruptive lately. Judas278 (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well fortunately, how we "seem" to you and 194 is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of File Hosting Category

This company is not listed among notable file hosting services, so the category should be deleted from this article. No justification was given. Judas278 (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not a realistic excuse for exclusion. Four of the largest file hosting companies in the world (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple) aren't on the list either. Do you have any proposals for improving the article, or do you plan to continue your obstructionist strategy of steady opposition and meta arguments? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You want to include it. Provide a source for inclusion. What next, a paragraph on this too. What notice was taken of this company's "file hosting"? It's a standard service captured under Generic Web Hosting Services. An encyclopedia does not need every trivial aspect repeated like this is an advertisement page. Judas278 (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a non-controversial addition based on the company's Files Forever service for customers who wish to securely sell DRM-free files. The service isn't significant enough to warrant a paragraph in the article (yet), but there can be no reasonable objection to the category. Categories are necessary navigational aids that do not require sourcing. Please stop obstructing article improvement. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Company Links, Again, "consensus" before

Talk about company links as sources ended about here. Shortly after this change indicated agreement of sorts. Judas278 (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the removal of the DreamHost Wiki from the external links section. I did object to the mischaracterization "was deleted by consensus 4/5/09" in the edit summary. In fairness, I think Sarek's reversion of your edit was unnecessarily antagonistic, if somewhat understandable. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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