Talk:SafeNet

Requested move 2008

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Should correct the capitalization of the company name? — Kinki (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

MediaSentry
Could some 3rd party please check the mediasentry section for neutrality? I find it quite biased and accusative. Should the RIAA -lawsuit rant be moved to RIAA article, or should a subsection 'criticism' be created? Kimvais (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

--

I just did two things. First, I removed the quotes around "on behalf of." Second, I removed the paragraph that called them goons and thugs and referred to a Dutch decision. The footnote cited http://p2pnet.net/story/12224, which actually was just a citation to http://p2pnet.net/story/6977, which, in reference to what was unlawful, said simply "Dutch ISPs didn’t have to provide customer information to the CRIA’s Netherlands counterparts." We need more information here.

So, if anyone wants to clean that stuff up, the actual decision they're referring to is here: http://www.daledietrich.com/imedia/decisions/Foundation_v_UPC_Nederland_(District_Court_of_Utrecht_July_12_2005).pdf. From what I can tell, the "unlawful" bit was not part of the judge's decision, but a counterclaim by the sued ISPs.

Reve (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wasn't there more info on Media sentry like the thing about the emails getting leaked and how dishonest their practices were? Who castrated their info?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Media Sentry again
I was confused by this too. Media Sentry is apparently no longer part of Safenet, so the material has been moved to the MediaSentry article. It doesn't seem appropriate to have the same information twice.

However, removing it completely does seem like a whitewash, since Media Sentry was part of Safenet at the time most of the controversial practices were going on. I think the thing to do is to mention them here, with a pointer to the Media Sentry article. I'll see what I can do. Please help out. Rees11 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2014 - Rename article to match correct spelling of name

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. Since MOS:TM explicitly allows camel case, the move is within policy. --BDD (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Safenet → SafeNet – The title of the article should match the way the company spells its name. Timtempleton (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

The nominator has provided no evidence (or even assertion) that the company's usage is common usage. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Where is the evidence that that the company's usage is common usage? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:TITLETM. The policy is: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark".
 * Support, I agree with the nominator, it should be spelled "SafeNet" like the company itself does. J I P  &#124; Talk 13:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I'm the nominator, AND a former SafeNet employee. Just look at the logo on the entry to see how it's spelled.  Or you can visit their website.  I don't think we want to use Wikipedia to give any more credibility to the misspellings by any other sources.Timtempleton (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The logo shows the company's usage. See above note about WP:TITLETM.
 * However good intentioned, I don't think Wikipedia editors should take it upon themselves to seriously debate whether the company has a right to spell their name the way they want to. I do like the way you make your user name brown though.Timtempleton (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is trying to change the spelling of the company's name. The question is do we stylize the name the way company stylizes or do we stylize it in normal English.  69.255.176.248 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.