Talk:Web Sheriff/Archive 3

Answer to tagging issue
Even though I did not receive an answer from Ronz on this talk page, he did reply to my inquiry on his own talk page: here by asking me to take a break. He also commented to Keithbob that he had asked me to take a break here but did not ask me on my own talk page. Keithbob has also asked me to take a break from the article early in the process: here. I do not believe that would be in the best interests of WP or the article. I am the only editor knowledgeable on the subject, who has actually contributed to material on it. I have done my best to do clean-up and do maintenance such as restoring refs. and copy editing after the other editors have completed their deletions (an ongoing process since July 29, 2011.) There has been approx. 120 edits deleting material in a free-for-all manner, so ADVERT could not possibly apply to the article now. It was only applied after I changed Keithbob's edits of Sept. 1st that deleted informative, NPOV and very reliably sourced material. I think the tag should be removed under the circumstances as there does not seem to be a valid reason for it being on the article. This must be rather confusing to readers, especially ones who look at other articles on Wiki and see this is pared down to the minimum and yet tagged as an advert. It definitely is not setting a good example for editors on other articles of what really constitutes ADVERT on a Wikipedia article. Agadant (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * removed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cameron Scott, perhaps now we can get back to making collaborated improvements to the article. Agadant (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Policy on Primary Editor
A policy that has never been regarded on the deletions to the article is the following from WP:OWN "Even though people can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor, it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article. (See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.)"

"Provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded, being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of broad relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or tailor others' edits. Provided this does not marginalise valid opinions of others, and is adequately justified, it too does not equal ownership. Often these editors can be approached and may offer assistance to editors unfamiliar with the pages." Agadant (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But that is not the case here and is not applicable. VQuakr (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is that? Why isn't it applicable here? Agadant (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I kept my response short intentionally since this subject is not directly related to discussing improvements to the article. If you want to discuss further, I suggest either of our talk pages as a more appropriate place. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

6 Sept'11 version


Web Sheriff is an anti-piracy company based in the United Kingdom that provides intellectual property, copyright and privacy rights protection services for a range of clients that include record labels, musical artists, media organizations, and celebrities.[1] The company has been in operation since 2000, with founder John Giacobbi acting as managing director.[2] It operates from two offices in the UK with a total work force of 20.[3][4]

The company monitors various websites that host links to unauthorized downloads of copyrighted music and film. It will send an immediate "take-down" notice to BitTorrent and other file-sharing sites or threaten lawsuits on behalf of its clients.[1][5] Web Sheriff reports that over half of its activities involve sending an initial polite request to blogs and fansites for copyrighted music to be removed, engaging with fans and offering free official promotional tracks and clips from the artist as replacement for the leaked material.[5][6]

Discussion on WP:LEDE
Please take a good look at WP:LEDE. --Ronz (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.
 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." (This should be useful to the discussion, I hope) Agadant (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct, which is why I brought up the concern that the 6 Sept'11 version is a poor summary in my 01:50 comment.--Ronz (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you need to say why it is, because others even the very experienced editor who mostly wrote it think it is certainly better than the August 6 version. Agadant (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What is a poor summary? This one or the current one? We need to start relating in a direct manner if we are able going to be able to work together. IMO. Why don't you just specifically say what you think is wrong with the current lead because your views right now are like a puzzle that everyone else is supposed to figure out. And that is not the way collaborating is accomplished and sucessful. Agadant (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
The info up to and including the founding date seems fine. Name of founder is questionable given he's not notable. Number of offices and size of workforce seem undue weight as well.

First two sentences of next paragraph seem fine as well.

Overall, it just doesn't appear to summarize the content very well, especially the important and encyclopedic content.

It would probably be useful to look at ledes made in the past months. --Ronz (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why look at past leads? - Just wondering... shouldn't the lead be a summary of the current article? Agadant (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ronz for your input. We did have the lead under discussion and will be working on it further. The lead is so subjective and varies so much from article to article. The guidelines too are not that definitive. Agadant (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Giacobbi is the company spokesman, founder, and does all the interviews representing the company, as far as I have ever seen. He is featured in every notable article about the company and no one else is. So in effect, I think most people think of him as the 'Web Sheriff' instead of the company. I think there really would be enough material available to write an article on him individually too but I'm not suggesting that. Why do you not think he is notable? I find that surprising and feel most people would not agree at all. Agadant (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also wondering why you would feel like the admin who wrote most of the lead and who is constantly reviewing and working on GA and FA articles did not write a lead good enough for this article that it needs tagging and that the lead is so bad that it can't do for just a while. Most articles that are not GA and FA do not have leads written by someone so knowledgeable. We were lucky here to have his work to use for lead, IMO. Agadant (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, many small businesses are heavily centralized around their founder. "Notable" on Wikipedia generally refers to whether there is enough material to write an article about a subject, so it sounds like you agree that he is not notable. How about demoting the coverage of workforce and Giacobbi to the second paragraph of the lede? He does get a couple of paragraphs in the article, so it makes sense for him to be mentioned later in the lede as well:
 * Web Sheriff is an anti-piracy company based in the United Kingdom that provides intellectual property, copyright and privacy rights protection services for a range of clients that include record labels, musical artists, media organizations, and celebrities.[1] The company monitors various websites that host links to unauthorized downloads of copyrighted music and film. The company has been in operation since 2000, with two offices in the UK.[ref]
 * The company was founded by attorney John Giacobbi, who acts as its managing director.[2] While Web Sheriff will send an immediate "take-down" notice to BitTorrent and other file-sharing sites or threaten lawsuits on behalf of its clients,[1][5] the company reports that over half of its activities involve sending an initial polite request to blogs and fansites for copyrighted music to be removed, engaging with fans and offering free official promotional tracks and clips from the artist as replacement for the leaked material.[5][6]
 * I could also see the first sentence of the second paragraph above being broken out into a separate paragraph on the company's history and formation. VQuakr (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not really understand why you think an editor being an admin means that areas they have edited should not be modified. Probably best to focus on content, not editors.

VQuakr (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, you're prob right. I don't have a problem with your changes as above. Agadant (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I updated the lede section per the suggestion above. VQuakr (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I put the above posts in time order as my reply of 2:16, even though time stamped correctly, was posted and placed as a reply to you instead of Ronz. I notice you posted the change but still left the tag. - I'm confused about this method of collaborating? Does that mean that every time two editors agree on a change the change gets posted but it doesn't mean the issues were addressed and consensus was reached. Otherwise, I would think there would be no change posted until there was. And also really confused about the tag and whether it means that until one editor (who says he does not like the lead and vaguely words why he is dissatisfied) - finally does like it - and removes the tag himself, it will stay in place? Can you be specific about this? Agadant (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I structured my replies to your specific statements rather than in chronological order; no issues with how it is laid out now if you feel it is clearer. The tag was added less than a day ago, I was hoping to hear more detail from the editor who added it rather than just edit warring over a tag. Going ahead with restructuring the lede was a judgement call; I did not think it was likely that anyone would take issue with the rephrasing based on the conversation that had gone on so far. As for how the article will be modified in the future, I cannot really be specific about that because no individual knows; this is a collaborative environment. VQuakr (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the version from 6 Aug'11: --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2011

"Web Sheriff is an United Kingdom based internet policing [1][2][3][4][5]organisation that provides intellectual property, copyright and privacy rights protection services. It operates from two offices in the UK with a work team of twenty employees.[6][7] The company was founded in 2000, by John Giacobbi, who manages the firm.[3][8]"


 * Ronz, you didn't sign your posted lead example above!


 * That is not a true representation of the article according to WP:Lead. Can you give any reasons based on policy why this lead is better than the current one? Be specific about why it follows the guidelines and policies for a lead but the current one does not? We could all put up versions of past leads, including the one I wrote that was deleted. A past version does not give any validity to it being the best version. At least, the current one was mostly written and structured by someone other than all of us. Agadant (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Lede size
Looking further at the history: The article was a stub for its first year, until 15:37, 31 December 2009. The very next edit (00:38, 14 March 2010) gave us a large article with a very large lede. Until very recently (13:27, 3 August 2011), the article has had a large lede. --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeh? The article on July 29 was twice the size it is now. Of course, I wrote on the article for a while and posted it when I thought it was pretty good. Isn't that what most editors do? As far as I have seen the more experienced ones do. What does the article previously having a large lead have to do with your opinion of the current one? Agadant (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally, it looks to me like the lede was only recently changed to attempt to conform to WP:LEDE. The solution is to be sure that any material currently in the lede but inappropriate for it is still properly presented in the article body. The lede should summarize, introduce, and highlight. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And also explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies:
 * Here are my ideas for those two points.


 * Prominent controversies:In 2007, the company received media notice when it was hired by Prince to remove his presence from the internet.


 * Notablility: I think that was established by The Los Angeles Times quote: According to the Los Angeles Times, Web Sheriff is a "leading advocate of the soft sell" in the anti-piracy industry.


 * With those two points taken care of, the current lead conforms to all the requirements per WP:Lead and between SilkTork's writing and Vquakr structuring it, one that is concise but yet summarizes the content. Agadant (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Clients list in description section
I removed the list of clients in the description section, leaving the references as support for the statement that the company has been employed by well know names. This change has been reverted. To me, having a list of customers like this does not flow well, and looks more like name dropping than encyclopedic content. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought the very barest of clients was appropriate for a little information purposes. The article is bare-boned and looks odd with a string of references like that. I've never seen that before and readers wouldn't know to look at the references. I suppose I shouldn't ever go near anything to do with clients on this article as it seems to always come up that is promoting on my part. Far from it and far from being obstinate about this, I just don't see why a few record labels are out of line. The most prominent name clients such as Michael Jackson, Adele, Lady Gaga, Beyonce are withheld already. Agadant (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the biggest record labels such as Universal are not even included. - Keeping out all referrals to any of the record labels seems like undue suppression. Especially, as it's hard to know why and if this is a special treatment for just this article or is applied across the board (so to speak). Agadant (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The work they do with their clients, who their clients are and how they go about doing the work for their clients, is what the article has to focus on. It's kind of difficult to do that when you have to not mention 'the unmentionable'. When I look through information to flesh out the article, that is mostly almost all that is encountered. That is the type of information that readers would be expecting and it is predominantly what is written about in reliable sources, many of which are music related, of course. Agadant (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think a client section, as was previously included would be a better way? Agadant (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Mention of them I'm happy with - separate client section - no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's undue weight and promotional. I changed it back to VQuakr wording with a footnote including all the clients and the sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's only your opinion, I disagree. Cameron Scott and I had a different opinion. This is supposed to be a consensus building endeavor.  Otherwise, you and Vquakr, are holding the article hostage. You are not from the NPOV board. You don't have authority here to take over and make key decisons based on opinion only. You have to cite policy.  Agadant (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, your combative and downright nasty attitude regarding this topic is getting to be quite tiring. Before you see yourself topic banned from this article...and from several years of WP:ANI participation, I will tell you that I have seen topic bans enacted for much, much milder rhetoric than you're engaging in now...it may be wise if you either focus on other areas for awhile or work towards less aggression here.  I feel the points raised here are valid; this is an article about a company, nothing more.  A little bout their history, what they do, what products they provide, and a mention of some notable clients and that's really all we need.  What we do not need is the clientele in list form, as that crosses much too far into advertisment territory. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My attitude is caused by the fact that this process is not fairly being conducted as a collaboration as we agreed.  If you take exception to my attitude why not Ronz and Keithbobs?  When we have  agreed to collaborate and work together, first Keithbob and now Ronz acted without consensus and only on their opinion. The article is tagged by Ronz for clean-up and he reverts everyone who takes the tag off but he will not give any good reasons why he does not agree with the lead. Why wouldn't I be upset? I can be very agreeable and reasonable if people act respectful of others and keep agreements so we can work together. I am not the one who is being contentious at all. What I said above is in my opinion not nasty at all, certainly not compared to what has been said to me. Agadant (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If everyone would consider my side of how this all was slammed on someone who has never been involved in such controversy before on WP as I stay to myself mostly and just work. On July 29, I received this message on my talk page out of nowhere: Take a Break. Then a few days later, notified I was put up on the COIN. All the while, accusations and massive deletions of my work at full throttle while I was having family problems, facing 2 eye surgeries and my computer acting up. I really felt like I had somehow been convicted on here of what would be like a criminal act in the real world. All the while knowing that I had only been guilty of maybe some hyper-focus on an article that no one else cared to edit but me and the vandals. Really off to a bad start and it has never abated. I would always have been co-operative and agreeable if I had been treated more respectfully... I really believe that... as I know that's how I am. If everyone wants to start over and wants to truly collaborate and be respectful of each other's feelings and ideas, maybe what has been a truly awful and negative experience could turn into a positive learning one for all involved. Agadant (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "The company has been hired by a number of notable production companies." - production company. This is odd and does not apply to the referenced list as it is mostly record labels and one film company. I changed it to read more accurately. Agadant (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that "production companies" is not the best summary of their clientele and have no objection to the phrase being improved. VQuakr (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Media companies" or something similar? --Ronz (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Several record labels and film production companies" provides a bit more usable information. VQuakr (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The definition of several in dictionary.com is being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind. From all the research, I've done to write the article, I'm sure the word "several" is misrepresenting the company. From what I have read, the company does work for a lot more record labels, film companies, artists who have their own labels, newspapers, etc. than are listed and, of course, we don't want to try to make a complete list, so why use several as we don't really know the complete number that have hired them.  Isn't the present version of the sentence okay?  I really carefully constructed it be accurately worded and neutral. Thanks for considering my contribution to the discussion. Agadant (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Found these instances of mentions of quantity of client base in a few minutes of spare time. There were a lot of names of artists, record labels, too, but since this is focused on quantity included only sourced info related to that topic:
 * "Web Sheriff,... performs a wide range of anti-piracy services for acts including Thom York, Anthony and the Johnsons, the White Stripes, Depeche Mode and more than 20 other major acts or their labels." - "Although Web Sheriff's client base is growing rapidly..."  Rolling Stone: "Battle Over Online Piracy Gets a Sheriff", Andy Greene, RS 1077, April 2009
 * Music Coaching: "John and his company have helped many well-known artists keep the theft of their content to a minimum."
 * Hope this helps! Agadant (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What about just dropping the quantifier? "Record labels and film production companies use the company's services." This is very similar to what is there now, but groups two classes of record label under the umbrella term "record label" (which strikes me as more concise). VQuakr (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The line above this one creates a problem of sorts, as far as finding a sentence that will flow well with it and one of the reasons I struggled with the current one for a while. Description Agadant (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

Even yet although I posted my intentions and asked for time to clean up sources
I haven't had time to go through the sources as that was so time-consuming and with the holidays, there wasn't time. But I see that the interest in this article is so high, that time wasn't allowed and another editor was in a hurry to zap it again... I will clean it up when I get time... at one time this article was very well sourced but after a free for all with no consideration of moving sources and changing text next to them for over a month, the article and WP was the worse for it and my hard work is disregarded. Agadant (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is really unfortunate when I really look closer... in only 80 minutes time, 19 or so edits were made removing 8 sources and about 3,000 bytes of content. Editing an article is not making quick deletions of information we personally may not like. It is about improving articles for the interest of the readers. Wikipedia is a volunteer project with every sentence written requiring a lot of freely given time. For another editor's time to be so disrespected is hard for me to understand. Agadant (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Starting to check sources - line by line
I've starting checking sources line by line for this article. I hope other editors will respect how time-consuming this process is and not make changes in the meantime based on the current sourcing for the article. It was well sourced - at one time and I will do my best to see that it is again. Agadant (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As seems to be some issues related to WP:OWN and allowing other contributers to clean up the article, I've tagged it for the problems that are on it. aprock (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, not WP:OWN just WP:FAIRNESS. Per your latest edit once again (?) removing this IMO rather innocuous line: the source was reliable (Rolling Stone) and the content was sourced therein: LINE REMOVED: "Numerous unauthorized overseas online sites selling merchandise featuring Prince were shut down."[36] Source states:  "Web Sheriffâ's president John Giacobbi, who has wiped off 2,000 illegally uploaded videos from YouTube and shut down about 300 eBay auctions, as well as multiple  overseas sites selling unauthorized merchandise."  Why do you say it was not sourced?
 * The article was already "so-called" cleaned up by other editors in July, August, September. I have mostly just added approved content and sourced it again after it was so deplorably messed up. Any self-respecting editor would do the same. That's not ownership, just respect for what Wikipedia represents. Agadant (talk)
 * WP:FAIRNESS is not a policy, with good reason. To recap a section of WP:OWN:
 * An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include the routine correction of egregious formatting errors.)
 * I have not done either of these. Agadant (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Justified article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
 * I have not reverted any "justified" article changes. But you, of course, can claim justified to any changes made here. Justified can be very subjective. Agadant (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it (see Nos. 1 and 2 just below).
 * I haven't done this but it has been done to me. Agadant (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting your name into the article as the author. Since no one "owns" any Wikipedia content, content should not be signed. The exact contributions of all editors are seen with their names on the page history. On the other hand, when adding comments, questions, or votes to talk pages, it is good to "own" your text, so the best practice is to sign it by suffixing your entry with " ~ ".
 * I have not done this. Agadant (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion we have seen a long history of examples #1 and #2 from User:Agadant on this article very clearly violating WP:OWN, that has resulted in driving away other editors and stagnating attempts at improving this article. VQuakr (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For one thing, what do you mean putting my name into the article as the author? Where did I sign content? If I did it was a mistake. I know better than that!!!! Agadant (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I copied the entire subsection to avoid overlimiting my quote, but as I stated above #1 and #2 and the items I consider applicable here. VQuakr (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the above apply to my editing on this article and it is misleading of you to say that it does. I am the only editor who has ever improved this article except SilkTork who tried to help but was too limited in time and too opposed by Keithbob and others and I'm sure was discouraged by that. Show me some other improvements? There has been only deletions, tagging and dumbing down by the others. I have complied with suggestions by others such as Alereon above and did not oppose his edit. You and the others constantly make me look like the BAD GUY in any ways that you can. I've written some good articles on WP and several are GA. So are you really being fair and impartial to make me look so bad because I found this company interesting and wanted to work on the article here? Agadant (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversial article?
Per the recent events: SOPA initiative Agadant (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This section was removed by VQuakr. WHY?
 * This does have a bearing on improving the article as it shows that the article may be held hostage due to POV factors pertaining to these recent events. The very removal of this section shows POV on the part of the removing editor. Agadant (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave a reason (sans caps) in my edit summary.
 * As a UK-based company that obviously predates the proposed American legislation, I am having trouble seeing the connection here. Yes, intellectual-property enforcement can be controversial; what specific improvements to the article do you hope to make with this section on the talk page? VQuakr (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * IMO you wouldn't have removed it, if it wasn't in some way a sensitive issue. The article can not be improved if there is a cabal of POV editors who keep tagging it and removing sourced NPOV material or else rewording it in a very substandard manner. Agadant (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC:
 * Yes, the company is UK based but most of their clients, according to what has been written, are US based. (But the US connection was taken out of article some time ago during the great deletion sessions.) Probably anyone who ever watches YouTube has been affected by videos removed by the company for its clients. I have myself even and was a little upset for awhile but being angry and revengeful is not my nature. Agadant (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To repeat, what specific improvements to the article do you hope to make with this section on the talk page? VQuakr (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What specific improvements do you hope to make by tagging the article as POV and AN ADVERT and saying that I exhibit WP:OWN? Other than trying to discredit my editing and delete and remove sourced and NPOV material and why are you so very interested in this article? To keep returning and hold it hostage with tagging and always consensus with all deletions. I know why I am... before I even thought clearly about how controversial the company was, I had already invested a lot of my free time in research and editing. And always have done my very best to only present the article in a NPOV manner. I have nothing vested here but my reputation and my own valuable, unremunerated free time. And I have given the same to many other articles, without regret, but none of the others has received this treatment of me or the article.
 * Ok, third attempt. You started a section in which I could not see was in any way related to discussing improvements to the article, so I boldly removed it. You objected, so here we are. What specific improvements to the article do you hope to make with this section on the talk page? VQuakr (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are really determined to get this section off here with first a complete removal and now pursuing an harassment (meaning annoyance) of me about it. Why, because you were NO. 75 to sign for a blackout against the bill among thousands? I don't make a judgment on your voting, but I do make a judgement on you claiming to be a neutral editor here. You should recuse yourself and stop making charges against my neutrality and accusing me of WP:OWN. Agadant (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If after rereading the harassment policy and in particular WP:HA you still feel that the accusation is well founded, please report it to the appropriate noticeboard. Otherwise please consider striking out the accusation. VQuakr (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't make a habit of reporting people, it causes grief on all sides and is largely a very destructive waste of everyone's time! AND anyway, I meant the common usage of "annoy" and "tire out" and not the WP definition (I didn't know that existed.) I don't know how to strike-out. If you want to show me by doing it through the word, then I will know next time. Agadant (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To address your other concerns, I assure you that my support of the Jan 18 blackout does not so cloud my POV that I would need to recuse myself from involvement with an article about a company in another country regardless of their business model, and have no intention of recusing myself (unless a consensus emerges that I should do so). Do you believe the other ~thousand editors that !voted must have too strong of POV to edit an article peripherally related to copyrights? What about editors that opposed a blackout? Surely their POV must be just as severe? VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For informational purposes, I did not vote, esp. because of my editing here & a basic lack of knowledge of the SOPA bill and its perceived effects. The thousand editors who !voted would have to be considered on an individual basis and on whether their editing here was neutral in manner. IMO, editors that opposed a blackout and did so stating a preference for WP to remain neutral on issues, can't in fact be said to have a severe POV. Agadant (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What concerns me the most about your interest in this article and makes me consider that you have a bias is that you never make any constructive suggestions to make it a better article. And yet, you show a considerable interest in the article. (like a personal interest - I don't know) You just want to make charges against me that I exhibit WP:OWN. Well, you can say that all day and night, and the article won't improve. Unless you think by improvement, leaving it tagged and running me off of it would give it a rightful appearance in the WP? I don't know what your intentions are here... since I am the only editor that originates content that actually makes it more interesting and informative, if you can give me some ideas on how you think I should present them, even like Alereon did above - although taking his advice opened me up to aprock saying too many mentions of the Web Sheriff were made. This article definitely receives an unusual amount of negative comments and deletions that no article that I have worked on or created ever have, so I don't take that burden on myself - that it is just my POV style of editing. It is the controversial nature of the company's work and that doesn't seem a fair application of WP policies to me. I notice that you or aprock don't write content on any (or many) articles, (we all have our work preferences, that's fine), so if you want to give me ideas on how I can write this article to please the naysayers (I'm not talking about any more deletions, there's been enough of that) I would greatly appreciate any advice. Agadant (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear why someone might tag an article with specific concerns. It's because the article in question has specific problems which need to be remedied. With respect to your editing behavior, there is a clear consensus that you've been exhibiting problematic editing on this article. If this can't be resolved on the talk page, wider involvement should be pursued. aprock (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that I should not, according to you and VQuakr, even comment on the talk page? Is this a threat? Why can I not express myself about the article's direction going downhill, and only downhill? What is the problematic editing I have done? Other than the clean-up to the article that it was tagged for and for restoring reliable sources again. As an experienced editor, I considered your deletions for a week or more and could not in any stretch believe that they were justified. Especially as they occurred 4 months after the NPOV discussion was over and done and you deleted content that was left in at that time or that I posted for review during the NPOV discussion, or should I say mostly article deletions. Because I am outnumbered, I am to be considered in the wrong and not allowed to edit or even discuss contentious "issues" on the talk page? This is a show of power of numbers and is it meant to be intimidating? Surely not... that would not be fair. I have done nothing wrong but not edit this article in a negative manner. I do not edit ever in a negative manner! I feel it is harmful to one's health and daily life - just my opinion. Agadant (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not making much sense here. No one suggested that you not comment on the talk page.  In fact, there was an explicit suggestion that this be resolved on this talk page. aprock (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, then why do you or Vquakr anyway, object to this section as I feel like it may be an issue in editing this article and always has been. You can see from the edit history that hardly anyone has ever edited it in 5 or 6 years time except me, the vandals and you guys, during the NPOV discussion and since. Sometimes a BOT shows up and sometimes some fearless soul comes by and makes a few helpful edits to clean-up refs or something but that's about all. It's almost always only negativity that I see here and that is not true on other articles I have edited. It is controversial and everyone involved that wants to contribute here needs to consider whether they are biased and if so, if they can edit neutrally regardless. I feel like I can and have and would be open to any discussion about content and how to improve it - enough has been looked at by many eyes already and I feel like any NPOV issues were resolved -  but not with the policy of improving but deleting sourced content that I spent a lot of time compiling.  Do you want to talk about improving the article with good writing and content or just more deletions? Agadant (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If by "you guys" you mean everyone that has made good faith edits to the article besides yourself, then I 100% agree with you that the onlypeople that have edited the article are the people who have edited the article. This is not, however, a particularly meaningful argument. What you seem to be saying is that anyone who disagrees with you about the content of this article must be editing from a non-neutral POV, which is:
 * Bunk.
 * An example of article ownership.
 * In cases where a single editor seems to be fighting everyone else, the problem is rarely with everyone else. VQuakr (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bunk. In the case of a controversial article about an anti-piracy company, esp. at this point in time, it may show a lack of neutrality against the company and the main editor of the article. SilkTork, a very respected admin and committee member, who didn't edit but who tried to form a collaborative effort for improvement to the article, felt the editing had gone too far and parts of the article should be restored and balanced but he was opposed by Keithbob.  Another editor from NPOV showed up and took off many tags plastered all over the article, but was quickly reverted. So any efforts made in good faith to participate and not just delete were thwarted and fought against as mine are. Agadant (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect the problems you describe here are exactly related to the fact that the article reads like a puff piece from someone associated with the company. aprock (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you just going to keep saying that? I could go on any GA or FA article on WP practically (especially musicians) and say the same if I wanted to delete content.  The article was already slammed as a puff piece (that's history) and 8 or 9 editors (I don't feel like counting) had their go at it. I have not made any new edits hardly at all since and have been very careful with wording. I have seen how much the views go up the day or two after I have edited so I know I am being watched and discussed. But still no matter how I go to extremes to not be branded POV or COI, you continue   it. That makes it very easy to discredit everything I write here to say it's a puff piece... It definitely isn't. It is pared to the max and almost unusable to the reader. Agadant (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you just going to keep saying that?. Only as long as it is true. aprock (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's real conducive to working together and for improving the article! And I say it is true that your editing shows you are POV and biased against the company and make attacks against me to have your way with dumbing down the article and deleting it away. Cameron Scott, who was my worst critic to start with says he changed his mind about my editing and concluded I was doing an excellent job and says that some (are you included?) want to get me off the article! Here on My talkpage  Agadant (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

New work on placement, wording and clarifying
I have made some new good faith edits to improve flow, clarify and remove redundant references to the company name. If there are any specific objections to any changes I have made, would the objecting editor please address these now, so that I can make appropriate changes accordingly, if applicable. This would be so helpful and would certainly, in the long run, go a long way towards improving the article for the benefit of WP and its readers. Agadant (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
These edits and removal of a lot of information from this article that is not POV and was reliably sourced are really bold and against policy. Very little of it was new material, but left in place as of Sept. 9, 2011, with Aprock being one of the deleting editors at that time. The removal of reliably sourced and non-contentious information damages the readability of the article.
 * (Edit summary: remove trivial content) The Prince fans fighting back can only be considered as NPOV material. Why anyone would seek to remove it, is unexplanable. It was left in the article when the deleting editors left as of 9-10-11, when HelloannYong made a final abrupt edit that ended the discussion on the deletions of the article. last entry -last version on 9-09-11
 * (Edit summary: remove content not supported by source) I have provided a source.
 * (Edit summary: correct to source) The correction made is actually inaccurate according to the source. I have provided a note for the source material.
 * (Edit summary: correct to source, ce) There are two sources for the entry. The second one was disregarded, it seems, perhaps because it is not viewable to the editor. I have provided a note with the source material and also another new reference.
 * (Edit summary: WP:NOTNEWS) A reference was furnished from a Russian news source. It is news for the subject of the article.
 * (Edit summary: clean up, correct to source) Every thing in the write-up is supported by the 2 sources. The word "immediately" is implied but not given. I will take it out. Does the editor not assume good faith and remove all material that he can not immediately verify from very reliable sources that are not available online at this time?
 * (Edit summary: no a reliable source for this info) The source that this editor removed was [Digital Wire Media] which gave the news of Universal's removal of the site again the next year but gave the info at end: "Martin," the founder and operator of RLSLOG, told TorrentFreak he is looking for a new hosting company for the site, which was also taken offline last year following complaints from anti-piracy firm Web Sheriff." This was provided to back up the other source.
 * (Edit summary: remove blog content, site is still up) This entry passed through the month long free-for- all editing by 8 or 9 editors. It is in HISTORY section, therefore should not be required to have a present and future effect. Definition of history: "A usually chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events."
 * (Edit summary: this article is still a mess) After the month long siege, plus this new one: the article is still a mess? Coming from this editor who has been very careless in reading sources and spelling even, this tagging and comment is bold. But, I will go through the entire article as I posted and check references, as  all the other editors have only "very hastily" removed content - either removing sources or leaving them out of place.
 * (Edit summary: copy edit, clean up) Removed the sentence that the new channel was a success that was cited to Web Sheriff, as the uninvolved editor demanded or requested above.
 * (Edit summary:WP:NOTNEWS - removed the entire entry about Qtrax. Perhaps it isn't national news but it is news to the history of the subject company and to Qtrax. NOTE: This entry also was left in by the editors during the month long deletions. If it was so much out of place, it would have and should have been deleted then.
 * (Edit summary: clean up, sync, tighten) This entry was posted for review 2 months before I posted it here. There were several editors still actively involved in discussion at that time and no one objected to the entry as I wrote it, so I posted it after 2 months went by. Removing interesting information from the article and the readers is not "sync, tightening," but harming the readability of the article and as more of these subjective deletions are made, the article is becoming exceedingly boring and unusable to the reader. Surely, this is not intentional. - I will Assume Good Faith, here.
 * (Edit summary: remove redundant) Editor removed the name Nick Bracegirdle, (?) who was mentioned by name in both sources.
 * (Edit summary: remove trivia not related to Web Sheriff) Editor removed info that added more clarity to the entry and would be of interest to the reader. Agadant (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, all you seem to be saying here is that you are the only one qualified to evaluate and edit the article. Most of your objections do not conform to policy, and appear to indicate problems with WP:OWN. aprock (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't expect you to say any different, but that doesn't make it true. You previously edited the article to your heart's content, followed by several other deleting, tagging and accusatory editors. So you come back a few months after the siege and delete a lot of the content deemed NPOV by the editors who definitely felt they were qualified to evaluate and edit the article (yourself included) and in fact removed half of it (all reliably sourced too). The content about Lady Gaga and Nick Bracegirdle I had put up on the talk page at that time for approval and not one editor objected. here  here Cameron Scott helped with a correction as a matter of fact. here  I only put the new material in the article 2 months later 10-27-11 (fair enough time for objections, I would think.  So why didn't you object to it then or make any of your other deletions at that time? You are the one who is not conforming to policy and have a problem with WP:OWN here as well as VQuakr, as it seems he also has returned for more accusations against me. They always say: "The best defense is a strong offense" so I've been run over here quite a bit. Agadant (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you feel changes I made require wider community consensus, and cannot happen because there may have been some previous consensus. Suffice it to say, this is not how wikipedia works. aprock (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changes you made were not justified by the edit summaries that you posted either. I carefully went over them above and with no animosity towards you. (As I have none now, either.) That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Progress can not be made or consensus reached to make improvements to the article when only more deletions are considered! Please don't forget that I am an experienced editor with almost 12,000 edits and over 5 years creating articles or adding content and sources to them. Agadant (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we disagree about whether or not my edits were justified. When unwarranted material is in an article, deletion is certainly a path to progress. aprock (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Aprock, this article got limited to just a few sections. Even Keithbob (who btw, made 100 edits to the Prince article in the past making him the 3rd largest contributor there) approved of a history section although he did make deletions to it. Prince stuff too, I don't know - I'll check it out! I think it is not out of order to include whatever material can be found history-wise by googling reliable sources. How else can we judge what an article should contain? Agadant (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is not out of order to include whatever material can be found history-wise by googling reliable sources., On the contrary, just because something can be found in a reliable source does not mean it merits inclusion. I suspect this misunderstanding of policy may be close to the heart of the problem here.  The most significant problem with the article is that most of the content comes from interviews with WebSheriff representatives, creating a significant problem with WP:UNDUE, and producing what looks to be a promotional page for the company. aprock (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * John Giacobbi, always the one interviewed as far as I have seen, is the company spokesman as well as manager and if the newspaper, or magazine want to write about the company they must often ask for comments from him or interview him. That is not out of the ordinary for this kind of company, I'm sure. Most larger companies have PR departments who give the information to the newspapers or magazines. But when a company spokesman who also runs the company comments, they quote him. It's not like a musician who puts out albums to be reviewed and we can get info from them about the album or charting history for the article. I have written on biographies and read many and much of the content comes from the subject and is considered reliable if the sources are, otherwise we would be branding them a liar. And if we quote when it applies, as they say WP:Verifiability is what counts, not truth. On the other point you raise, how else can the history section be compiled? I don't and you don't know the history of the company and what they have been involved in except if you or I read reliable sourced material. That is so true of any subject that concerns people but not with scientific topics, etc. Agadant (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with quoting the company spokesman. There is something wrong with basing an entire article solely on interviews with the company spokesman.  As noted above this is not and issue of WP:V, but one of WP:UNDUE. aprock (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


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

Problems with undue weight are discussed in the archive parges by multiple editors:. This is not a new issue, and WP:NPOV (of which WP:UNDUE is a part) is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS and applies to all wikipedia articles. aprock (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again an exaggeration! - Three times in 3 huge achives filled with much talk, accusations and not necessarily anything much but personal opinions and conjecture. The WP:UNDUE were regarding different matters than the fact that this article uses reliable sources in some cases that consist of interviews to source information on the company such as operating methods, how the company was started, etc. Who better than the managing director to give accurate information to reliable sources who are depended on to check it out? Primary sources that could have given a description of the work the company does, etc. were censored from this article. (Policy does not state they cannot be used ever.) But they were not allowed here! Alereon demanded or stated that information had to be attributed which makes the company's name and the spokesman's name appear more often than I originally edited into the article. I will make a list of all the normally allowed sections and information that have been censored from this article. And now you want to censor the company's spokesman's comments and information given to very reliable sources? What next? Agadant (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no exaggeration. aprock (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A comparison:
 * Per WP:UNDUE This article The Million Dollar Homepage is a WP:FA and if one looks at the references, one can see that almost all of the information in the sources comes from Alex Tew, the founder. He is quoted and interviewed in most of them and several of them are primary sources and written by Alex Tew. This article is not labeled with ADVERT and POV and UNDUE WEIGHT, but is labeled with WP:FA. Agadant (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But this is not relevant, as you know since it was discussed here and in the previous section. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You decided it wasn't relevant because you didn't want it to be. WP:IDONTLIKETHAT Agadant (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not the only editor that disagreed with the suggestion that TMDH was a useful "go-by" for this article, which is readily apparent from reading the section of the archives linked above. VQuakr (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Censored from article - POV?
*Majority of clients are in US - I added this information back into the article, but if an editor can give an objection based on policy or even common sense, why it shouldn't be there, I will delete it. Agadant (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All primary sources (correction: official website references taken out)
 * A list of clients except a few record labels in a footnote. (it is not against policy to have a client list)
 * In the media section
 * A description of how the company's name came about
 * Information on the founder's background - One editor, at least, hoped to keep all mention of the founder from the article
 * Any mention of charting success of client when using the company
 * Number of employees
 * fact that company has employees working shifts in a 24/7 work week

Some of this is just really unexplainable except perhaps by the editors who enforced it during the NPOV deletions. This list is just off the top of my head - I know there are more. Agadant (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Censored" has a rather dark connotation. You are summarizing information that was contested, altered, discussed, or removed at some point in the last several months. The reasons for these changes and proposals were editorial and policy based (ie NPOV), not ideologically motivated. VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up low quality sources
Much of the content in the article is based on low quality sources quoting representatives of the company directly. These low quality sources are almost certainly not reliable sources, and are generally not doing anything other than providing a PR outlet for the company. If you want to improve this article and move it away from being an advert to an encyclopedic entry, I suggest discarding all of these low quality sources and sticking with more reliable sources. aprock (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As Agadant has pointed out, even an thorough and very independent article on this company would probably include quotes or comments from the company founder/spokesperson so an source should not be excluded just for including a quote. The important thing here is that article not end up quoting (directly or indirectly) sources from within the company so much that it reads like it is parroting the PR department. VQuakr (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly. The point isn't that there aren't good sources in the article, the point is that too much of the article isn't sourced to good sources.
 * examples of low quality sources
 * musiciancoaching.com, interview with Giacobbi
 * Music News Australia, blog
 * Encore, press release
 * silent talkie, group blog
 * plus many more
 * There is also the very curious pattern of footnotes having footnotes, which appears to serve no real point. I think cleaning out most of the blog and plain press releases would go a long way to improving —the tone of the article. aprock (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any talk page discussion I have seen about sourcing that was questioned always says "Can we find better sources for this?" I don't agree though that the sources are not good but would have appreciated a request to resource the applicable material. And I'm very sure I can. Agadant (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure what you mean by footnotes having footnotes. Can you elaborate? Generally, I agree that there is too much focus on quantity of references rather than quality in this article. VQuakr (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Footnotes [16], [17], [18], and [19] are only referred to in footnote [20]. Most of those sources are dubious at best. (static version.) aprock (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ronz put the footnotes and Vquakr approved: Agadant (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do recall discussing this at some point, which does not mean that the article cannot be improved be removing the notation. Would you be willing to update the link you posted above? It seems to be broken. VQuakr (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yikes, what a mess. I had been confused by the section earlier but didn't catch what was going on. I am removing the whole set of refs; I think the sentence is adequately supported by subsequent sections without any sources at all. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and reverted. Ok, lets discuss further. Is a list of customers necessary in the description section? VQuakr (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you both should quit with this game playing. This is an encyclopedia not a video game. Please use some maturity. Obvious tag team and ganging up. Really unenclyclopedia and unprofessional behavior. Agadant (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. aprock (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The two of you were the ones who left the discussion. I asked for input but you preferred to keep it tagged! I had to work on my own and now you both just show up and start taking the article down. I haven't played games. I have done my very best to create an unbiased article in the manner of The Million Dollar Homepage. Agadant (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize that my schedule does not sync up with yours. You're getting honest good faith feedback now.  How you choose to respond is up to you. aprock (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been editing a lot since you left this discussion on the 25th or 26th of January. So has Vquakr. But you chose to instead get together and take down my hard work with deletions. Vquakr even deleted the clients in the footnote that he approved with another editor. It's there in the archives. Agadant (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Working on this article is not always the most productive use of time. This thread is a clear illustration of this.  When honest and constructive policy based feedback was offered, the response was anything but productive. aprock (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Other editors are not under any obligation to comply with your timelines, though I did explain the general reason for the timing of my edits on your talk page. The implication that other editors are colluding somehow to secretly "get together" and edit the article (that you describe as your work) is false and a failure to assume good faith. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do the two of you decide a very serious matter of deleting reliably sourced material, when NPOV calls for improving. There are no good faith efforts on your part to really collaborate and improve - only downsize material, dumb it down or delete it in whole... The 3 D's. There are other ways of editing, unless the main game is to humiliate the main editor and when the tags didn't do it, then taunting and mass deletion of time consuming research and writing are called for. This is not professional behavior or worthy of WP editing. I am seriously trying to write a good article and asked for guidance not any more deletions. Agadant (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it is my work. That is not ownership, it is the truth. Excuse me, if I'm wrong but have you given the reader any information or contributed in any manner other than downsizing and deletions? That does not an encyclopedia make...Agadant (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No one takes issue with giving you credit for your contributions; you have the right for your contributions to attributed to yourself per the license agreement. The issue is that you seem to believe that the particular individual who made edits to an article, and how difficult those edits were to make, are facts relevant to the decision about whether it is editorially favorable to remove content from the article to improve it. VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any editor that looks at talk pages would be aware that deletion is considered a last resort and a very contentious method of improvement. SilkTork, a very experienced admin said he thought the deletions had gone too far. Balance On my talk page you will see a very nice compliment from Cameron Scott about my work on the article and about how some ppl were wanting to remove me from the article.Here And Cameron Scott started out as a very contentious critic of my editing. I am very nervous now when I write on the talk page as something I say can be misconstrued and used to topic ban me. Agadant (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious sources
Having taken the time to go through the list of sources, here are the ones that are dubious. I suggest these sources be removed. Most of them do not support critical content in the article, and moving to more reliable sourcing can only improve the article. aprock (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * http://musiciancoaching.com/music-business/how-to-fight-music-piracy/, blog
 * http://musicnewsaustraliadotcom.blogspot.com/2012/01/web-sheriff-has-helped-everyone-from.html, blog
 * http://encore.celebrityaccess.com/index.php?encoreId=312&articleId=39802, press release
 * http://silenttalkie.com/2010/01/19/stradio/the-brown-couch-of-leisure-january-17-2010-a-year-oh-a-year/, blog
 * http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2008/03/review-the-raco/, no mention in article
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-giacobbi, self published
 * http://allthingsd.com/20080218/ymca-piratebay/, blog
 * http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=27184&sectioncode=1, press release
 * http://torrentfreak.com/web-sheriff-takes-down-rlslog-090119/, blog
 * http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/10/leaked_bob_dylan.html, no mention in article
 * Yes, we should look at and discuss these sources, if you think they are all unreliable. There is a lot to check out here such as: is a blog page always considered unreliable, if it is written by a professional journalist for the publication? I didn't think so... I think I checked it out. I know and remember that I have very seriously considered all sourcing that was used. The very fact that you have posted your questions here is a different response than in the past. - That would have only included a brief edit summary on a deleting entry that would have accused me of promotion, or some other evil intent, other than just to write an article that would inform the readers on the subject of the article. Thank you for taking the time to go through the sources and suggesting that moving to more reliable sourcing can only improve the article is a point I would have to agree with, if, in fact they, or some of them, are deemed unreliable. Agadant (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLOGS discusses the matter to some degree; for the blog sources that are interviews, these are effectively primary sources and can be used similarly (unless we have reason to think that the interview is not real, which I do not think is the case), keeping in mind that just because a company spokesperson was published saying something does not mean it necessarily should be included in the article. Some reliable secondary sources have "blogs" that are effectively the same as opinion columns written by staff members of the publication; these generally can be used like a staff opinion column from a newspaper. VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are several blogs from established news sites which are used as sources in the article that did not make the list above. For example, I believe all the CNET sources are blogs.  Blogs hosted by reputable news organizations (like CNET) are generally considered reliable.  The sources listed above are all listed exactly because they almost certainly do not qualify as reliable sources. aprock (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * After examining the sources that were questioned as extensibly as my time permits, I agree with Aprock on most of the ones he has questioned. These two though, (although, they are not sole support for critical content), I don't agree at this point are not reliable and independent sources. So, I question them, as much to improve my knowledge on reliable sources, then for any other reason. And Thanks Again, Aprock for checking out the sources.
 * http://allthingsd.com/20080218/ymca-piratebay? I think it is a reliable source per:All Things Digital
 * http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=27184&sectioncode=1 I think it is reliable per:Music Week Agadant (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The inference that one might make here, is that you agree that the other sources used are not of sufficient quality to be a basis for article content. Is that correct?
 * The most striking feature of these (and other sources) is that the content related to Web Sheriff comes directly from Web Sheriff itself. Using direct quotes from Giacobbi is fine, but he is a primary source.  Per WP:PSTS, great care must be taken when using primary sources.  It's clear from the tone of this article that not enough care has been taken, and the article reads too much like a Web Sheriff press release for wikipedia standards.  I think there needs to be a move away from basing article content on direct quotes and a move towards using the synthesis provided by the best reliable secondary sources.  aprock (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand you want to make that point, but it's not related to whether the sources above are reliable. Aprock, it seems like sometimes you move from one form of critique on the article, and myself, to another, as each one gets addressed. That causes a lot of unproductive time, and a feeling of defeat to never be able to get material and sourcing in the article to any degree of non-contention. Do you see what I mean, from my side of the discussion and my genuine intent to settle all issues, so that we can go on to other matters, other than battling it out over this one article. Agadant (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In looking over the article, I don't think that is as much of an issue as you seem to believe. Except for some of the examples of their services, (which normally would be sourced by an official website, but we aren't allowed to here), most of the material is based on synthesis provided by the best reliable sources. Giacobbi is often quoted in the articles but his quotes are not what most of the material is based on. Agadant (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that you wrote the article, it is hardly surprising that you find little fault with it. That there is more than one issue with the article is not in question.  If your best response to the legitimate issues with the article is to dismiss the out of hand as you've done here, I expect that there will not be much progress made towards improving the article. aprock (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Why don't you ever specifically address passages that concern you? And not just from an remedy of deletion but one of rewording or re-sourcing.
 * 2. I know I am not the very best editor on WP, but I get good feedback, few reverts, etc. in my content editing. And I don't fight improvement on articles, only deletions based on WP:IDONTLIKETHAT or incorrect policy applications. If someone makes a valid point for deletion of a part of my work, I have never been so "proud" of my work to argue the point for very long, if I think about it and see their point. You just, oddly enough, IMO, seem to want me to give up and let the article be basically deleted for the most part and not improved. Do you disagree? What would be your first action, if I left and you had full control of it?
 * 3. You did not answer my question of whether the 2 sources I disagreed with are reliable. You went on to another issue, immediately! Agadant (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect to the two sources that you mentioned, I specifically discussed how one must be careful when using such content. If you agree that the other sources should be removed, we can proceed from there.  If you'd like me to go ahead an make the appropriate changes, I'll go ahead.  If you would like me to propose specific language so that you can bless or veto specific content, I'm afraid that this process is going to take a very long time. aprock (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I do not agree that you should remove the sources at this point. We agreed to not edit until issues were solved. The funny thing is that most of the present article was in place when the discussions ended on 9 September 2011. The other editors and you should not have left the discussion at that time if you were not satisfied that all issues that concerned the multiple editors were addressed. But you and VQuakr come back 5 months later with the accusations that it is filled with forbidden and unacceptable content that is irredeemable but must immediately be addressed by deletion. Not your words, but your meaning and actions lately. I'm up for looking at specific sentences or paragraphs that you object to and your reasons why based on policy. I thought that was the purpose of collaboration and of this discussion. Agadant (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to be as clear as possible; the dubious sources should be removed and replaced by citation needed tags. If that content cannot later be sourced to reliable secondary sources, it should be removed. At this point, it seems we agree that all but the two you mentioned are dubious sources. Those should be removed. aprock (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have questions about the sources that per your write-up, would not be considered as "reliable sources' before I am ready to agree which ones may not be considered so. Looking at WP:GA and WP:FA article that contain some self-published bios and blogs has really made me take a new look. But here's another question about two where you said "no mention in article". I think that was the objection not reliability for you. But if the source references a specific word in the sentence such as "leaked", and we want to source that point with it only, would the source have to mention Web Sheriff in it? Wouldn't the fact that it gave information about the leak of the album being written about, be enough to include it? Agadant (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please answer the above and note the self published bio and blogs on this WP:GA article: Here. Aprock, will you please refrain from replying on the resolution board, when I post a reply to Whenaxis before he gets any time to answer me. I find that unfair and disruptive, esp. when you misrepresent me. Please answer my question above posted at 23:38. Agadant (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For linking to the live version of articles, it is generally cleaner to use an internal link, ie Norman E. Rosenthal. This is a different article than the one we are working on here; if you have concerns about its sourcing then you should post on the article's talk page (or submit it for good article reassessment). Content discussions, particularly contentious ones should be policy based rather than comparing to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Similarly, Agadant why do you believe that how long a sentence has existed in the article is relevant? That being said, WP:PRIMARY does not say that you can never use primary sources.
 * In reply to Agadant's post here, the music week article has a couple red flags that make me not regard it as a quality source. Specifically, it lacks a credited author and consists mostly of quotes. The all things digital article appears reliable, but does not say much of substance about the company and functionally is little different than a primary source.
 * I am risking repeating myself too much here, but I do not want to give the appearance of shifting goalposts. Just because we have an acceptable source for something true does not mean it merits inclusion. Restated, an immaculately referenced bit of trivia can still be judged not to merit mention in the article via a WP:CONSENSUS. Editorial judgements about what undisputed, sourced information should be included are independent of WP:V and WP:RS. VQuakr (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

clarifying which sources are thought reliable
Please list the sources that you agree are not reliable, and the sources that you think are reliable. My impression was that you agreed that all but two were not reliable. If you believe that all of the sources are in fact reliable, please clarify that. aprock (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my question and concerns. Why? I said I am confused now. Has a deadline been put in place for this? If you were wrong about two that we know of, and I am confused now after looking at the above GA article, I think we should wait and try to agree 100 per cent. Please don't pressure me! And I will have more confidence in your neutrality, if you will answer my questions. Agadant (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you believe that any of the sources are not reliable, you are free to say so. You shouldn't need me to answer other questions to make that determination. aprock (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If I hadn't believed they were reliable, I would never have used them. I am very detailed oriented, having worked in accounting professionally. You made me question some of them and after viewing other articles, I am confused now. Can't you respect that? We will resolve this and soon. I just don't feel confident to make a decision now! Let's call it a day! I'm tired, aren't you? Agadant (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine by me. There is no deadline, and I'm in no rush here. aprock (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious sources checked
Agadant (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) http://musiciancoaching.com/music-business/how-to-fight-music-piracy/, blog - (This is an independent interview by professional: in music industry resume)
 * 2) http://musicnewsaustraliadotcom.blogspot.com/2012/01/web-sheriff-has-helped-everyone-from.html, blog - (info written and posted by musicnewsaustralia: Music News Australia is a company specializing in covering the Australian and international music, film and entertainment business)
 * 3) http://encore.celebrityaccess.com/index.php?encoreId=312&articleId=39802, press release -  No: (It's listed in Label and Publishing news &  posted by Celebrity Access Staff writers - directly above it is an advertisement labeled as such but does not refer to the Web Sheriff article)
 * 4) http://silenttalkie.com/2010/01/19/stradio/the-brown-couch-of-leisure-january-17-2010-a-year-oh-a-year/, blog - n/a: will delete. I didn't check FN refs. recently
 * 5) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2008/03/review-the-raco/, no mention in article - ditto, will delete
 * 6) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-giacobbi, self published - (not self-published: even if written by Web Sheriff it was published by Huffington Post and with their approval.)
 * 7) http://allthingsd.com/20080218/ymca-piratebay/, blog - (not blog: All Things Digital: online publication that specializes in technology and startup company news, analysis and coverage. Article by professional editor: John Paczkowski)
 * 8) http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=27184&sectioncode=1, press release - (not press release per Music Week: "Music Week is the bible for anyone interested in the music industry in the UK." )
 * 9) http://torrentfreak.com/web-sheriff-takes-down-rlslog-090119/, blog - (not blog: - source of latest breaking news) Used as source on GA article reviewed by an editor who has reviewed more than 594 GA articles
 * 10) http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/10/leaked_bob_dylan.html, no mention in article - (references the relevant album leak only)
 * I'm not following you here. Are you saying that all of the sources that you're not willing to delete are reliable sources which are acceptable for using in the article? aprock (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do believe that sources 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are reliable sources, after checking them out more thoroughly and therefore did not delete them. Although, of course, I'm always ready to be open-minded and discuss further. Agadant (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Addressing this as you seem to think my lack of response is meaningful in some way. All of these sources are low quality puffery. Your repeated defense of blogs and sources whose content is entirely based on Web Sheriff PR speaks for itself. That I have no interest in wiki-lawyering with you over the reliability of blogspot sources is more an indication that your argumentum ad nauseam is sufficiently effective. aprock (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I'm not at all confident that you are more experienced or qualified to judge reliable sources than me. I have created over 80 articles, worked on 2 GAs and edited extensively on many more. You have only created this one: Jonas Žnidaršič. Agadant (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that non-sequitur. aprock (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There can be no resolution when the tagging editor is holding the article hostage and without relevant discussion as required
I added NPOV and reliably sourced material and did a little clean-up on this article today and once again the same editor has retagged it. He recently questioned reliable sourcing on the article and I addressed his issues and he did not dispute me and it has been over a month. He has refused to address any specific issues on this article just heavy material deletion of NPOV and reliable sourced information for the readers and has added two extreme and non applicable tags to the article. In other words, he and another editor are watching the article closely to keep it from being improved or ever added to without unfair tagging. He did not discuss adding the tags  back on the article and his editing is disruptive and contentious, IMO. I will remove the unfairly applied tags but am willing and have always been willing to discuss any specific issues or "real" improvements that can be made to the article besides just tagging and deleting. Agadant (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what to say about this comment. The issues have been discussed endlessly, and your unwillingness to accept outside contributions that you do not personally agree with is one of the primary problems here.  I've restored the tags as appropriate.  If you've got a problem with the tags, I suggest you allow people to edit the article freely to address the issues they represent.  Removing tags because you don't like them is disruptive.  aprock (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There are no current or specific issues discussed by you and you apparently are only interested in being disruptive and applying tags as a 'badge of shame', because I am not in agreement with you that your hand-picked subjective deletion of reliably source material is an improvement or a contribution. Agadant (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The above section clearly illustrates your lack of judgment in evaluating the reliability of sources. I stand by the tags.  If you think they are based on an attempt to edit disruptively, I suggest you take your concern to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a lot of judgment and experience in evaluating reliable sources. - articles I've created But do you? (as above). The proof is in the pudding. I have been willing to give my time for improving and adding content to Wikipedia for 6 years now and have never had this problem with any article or editors before this one. You need to examine whether your deletions and tagging here are done in good faith editing or as a 'badge of shame' with an obvious bias against this company. Agadant (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The proof is in the pudding Quite.  Based on your evaluation of the sources above, I stand by my evaluation.  I suppose the next step is to take those sources to a noticeboard to get some outside feedback.  Given that I never heard of this company before this article showed up on the noticeboards for your disruptive behavior, I can't imagine what sort of bias I might have.  On the other hand, your repeated insistence to include puffery based on unreliable sources seems a better indication of where the bias may lie. aprock (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I added these two new sources today that brought on your new accusations and tagging. Are you really going to say they are not from reliable sources and BTW, Web Sheriff does not speak at all in either one of them:
 * here telegraph.co.uk
 * here Mail Online Agadant (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The issues are not new. They are the same ones that have been plaguing the article for many months now. aprock (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL... another diversion and again - not a specific answer. The issues are that you have latched on to this article - like you have other ones, according to your most common editing, and seem to think you are the ultimate authority in judging all measures of sourcing, POV, my judgment, my intentions, etc., etc, etc., and you display a heavy amount of contentiousness and article ownership. You just won't let go or for the sake of Wikipedia and constructive editing and policy application, collaborate for improvement - although you have done none of the tedious, time consuming work researching, compiling and formatting. I have been very discouraged by your attacks on me from the very beginning - taking me to COIN, and making unfair accusations against me but if I and other content editors give up there will be no one left to preserve the encyclopedia against the editors who only want to pass judgment, make accusations and delete our work because although they can't or won't do it themselves, they think they know best.Agadant (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm displaying ownership issues here, please do take your concerns to a noticeboard. aprock (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Link to WP:RSN discussion: . aprock (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do love to go to the noticeboards, don't you? And while there you have often misinterpreted and misrepresented what I have written or my editing in order to try to discredit me and to distract the conversation and attention to yourself. I have brought this up before on the noticeboards that some of you more contentious editors are so fond of running off to. No wonder you never have time to write content or create articles. Agadant (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Reading talk pages like this reminds me why I don't do anything other than minor edits. This article reads like an IP industry puff piece. If this is the best NPOV can get us, NPOV is being mis-interpreted. 69.244.155.82 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

New tag
aprock had labeled the article with a new tag that is not applicable at all to this article: The tag links to this essay: FANCRUFT "While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." I'll assume he didn't read it carefully enough though. These tags are not well explained on the template, IMO. I also do not agree with the NPOV template he had put up but I don't consider it uncivil, just subjectively applied to an article that I have "done my darndest" to write in an interesting and informative manner and to comply with restrictions previously applied to this article alone, such as not using the official website to source such things as the type of work the company does. I don't know if aprock considers that this type of company is unusual and can't be written about in the same way as say "Columbia Records" or "Apple Inc." Agadant (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The tag does not link that to that essay. aprock (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It did before it was renamed... I'll find it and post it here for you. Agadant (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * HERE: Overly detailed Agadant (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was renamed more than two years ago. Given that all your objections do not relate to the current version of the tag, I've restored it. aprock (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I linked to the talk page in error instead of the template page. My mistake.
 * The template is dated April 2012 link and in the See Also section it links to Wikipedia Fancruft. Check it out. Why would you be in such a hurry? I try so hard to WP:AGF. I don't think that being enemies and deliberately insulting each other is good for us or the encyclopedia or does not in any way help to improve this article. I would ask you to please remove this tag as I think it is considered a real detriment to the article and the editor.
 * The article is now listed here These articles do not even have any sources and do not in any way resemble this one in style. Agadant (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the see also links to an essay about fancruft. That's because that is one example of overly detailed content.  This article is another example.  aprock (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, I find and I'm sure many others do too, that there is very little straight forward in the write-ups for guides to proper editing, sourcing, tagging, that we can depend on to be black and white. There are so many exceptions and loop holes that can be applied to almost anything on WP. That is why I often look for examples of what is allowable, proper, etc on GA or FA articles instead of trying to learn what policy applies and what all the guides are saying. I gave the link to the category page that this article now falls in and I feel like it is not fairly categorized. This article is very well-sourced - most of those are not sourced at all. This article is structured and the style has not been pointed to as a problem. Those are mostly sprawling and out of control. Once again, I feel like your comment is not helpful. You say the article is an example of overly detailed content. But if that was ever true in the past, it is not anymore. All articles on WP are only going to be read by a select, interested group of readers and all we can do as content editors is try to present the material that would be interesting to those readers. I have never read the articles here unless for 'some' reason I am interested in the subject matter. If you look at GA and FA popular musician's articles, as an example, they are never accused of being too detailed, maybe other things but not that. On this article, many sections were deleted and said to not be permitted (unjustly, IMO) - client list and in the media for one, and those are necessary in some form to explain the notability of the company. From what you have deleted in the past, and VQuakr too, you seem to feel like the history section should be trimmed to a few instances, or else trim the paragraphs to shorten the information. From a writer's perspective if the information is curtailed and you can't have enough material to make it interesting and informative than we are doing the readers and WP a disservice. You have often said I am too biased in favor of the company but that is not true. I find the company interesting and have often run across it as a content writer for musician's articles. So I basically wanted other readers who do to have information just like they can get on any biography or other company article for that matter. Sorry, to be so long winded but I just don't think you ever give me the benefit of the doubt on this article. You always, I think, have been suspicious of my motivations and feel like I am trying to promote (for what purpose?) and not just write interesting information. Your attitude towards me and your suspicions of my motivations do have a lot of influence on how you view this article. Agadant (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This sort of discussion where you make vague and unsubstantiated accusations without diffs is unhelpful. You appear to be attributing things to me which I have never said.  Either stick to discussing the article or bring your concerns (and diffs) to the appropriate noticeboard.  aprock (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Noticeboard again? Why do you not ever discuss anything man to man, so to speak? Why always want to run to a noticeboard? I am not afraid of noticeboards or intimidated by them. I just don't find them to be the best way to resolve issues unless absolutely necessary as it means asking for unknown editors to solve your problems for you, but I can do it. You have threatened noticeboards 4 times on this current page now. - no diffs needed.  And you took the reference issue to the reliable sources noticeboard currently and Vquakr on this page time line went to the dispute resolution noticeboard. You did immediately put me up on the WP:COIN when the article was before the NPOV noticeboard, when this all started. here On just this current page you made these comments about my bias: here, here. I don't deny that I have made comments about what I perceive as bias on your part but hoped to find that I was wrong about that. I meant for the above to perhaps give us a start in working together but obviously that is not what you want. I like to work and not fight on here but lately I have got no work done. It's a shame to waste our time this way, IMO. Agadant (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:DR for an explanation of what noticeboards are for. The suggestion that community input is not worth pursuing is antithetical to wikipedia policy. aprock (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the diffs you supplied, I can only say that the actual content bears no resemblance to your characterizations:
 * Discussing possible WP:COIN issues is more than a reasonable thing to do. The discussion ended with me saying Agadant has made it clear that he has no relationship with Web Sheriff, and I for one trust that he is speaking honestly here.  Given that, I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.
 * I make no mention of any bias in your editing either here or here
 * From my perspective, it seems you are railing against imagined attacks that do not exist. aprock (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A big attack did exist and you were one of the first to precipitate it - never caring or thinking what a complete blow to me it was and how unprepared I was to have a group of people all against me (as never in my life before) and ridiculing the work I thought I had contributed to the encyclopedia's good during many, many hours of my free time. It broke my faith in the community always being fair and balanced and not acting sometimes as a mob.  But of course, the community here is just a cross section of people in general. And in general and as individuals most people on wikipedia are decent and thoughtful. And I'm sure you are too. You just are my adversary and I can say that without any personal animosity at all. As you may have noticed, I don't speak Wikitalk and I never will. Good night, Agadant (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)