Talk:Web Sheriff/Archive 4

Current problems with article
Following up to this comment above: I've left this article alone for some time now. Looking through it now, it continues to have the same problems: promotion, undue detail, use of poor or unreliable sources, improper use of primary sources, peacock terms and general puffery. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * A red flag goes up! Ronz, you left this article over a year ago, after making vague, unspecific charges and edits here at that time. Now, an anon IP who has made just 3 edits since 2007, appears with charges of NPOV against an article on a company that deals with disgruntled internet downloaders every day because of copyright infringement problems, whose founder has been called "the most hated man on the internet, as a title in an interview.  An hour after the anon IP comments here, you once again make your appearance with your charges of many but unspecific problems on the article. Let's look at the promotion charge, for instance.  That's unfounded and insulting. Have you or your fellow editors been noticing that I have been working on the article for the latest Van Morrison album?  So, you're making it appear that I am promoting Web Sheriff and that there is a connection between my editing on that article and my previous editing on this one. Van Morrison did use Web Sheriff for his previous album to this 2012 one, and before I ever edited Web Sheriff.  I have not seen any indication that he has used Web Sheriff  to protect the current album. Search the internet and see if you can find one connection. So your charge of promotion is unfounded. I do not work for Web Sheriff or Van Morrison and the two are not connected at all. I edit Van Morrison articles because no one else does and I believe his work is important enough to be represented on Wikipedia. In the same manner I edited on this Web Sheriff article.  Thanks, Agadant (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks for making the ip's point all the more clear. --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, how's that? Your charges and replies are always so short and unexplained. You seem to think you don't have to be specific about anything. Is that typical on WP? Shouldn't you be able to if you really have something of substance to say and if you have valid complaints? Agadant (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So either fix it or make specific suggestions for changes. Nobody Ent 17:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like editors are off to a good start. Let's see how it goes for a bit. Does someone have time to go through all the sources? It still looks like there are a lot of questionable sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI
There was a recent discussion at ANI regarding the editing of this article. The discussion has now been archived and I'm providing a link here in case it is needed for future reference. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources, again
On 19 July 2013, User:Aprock made a deletion and referred to unreliable sources as one of the reasons for his edit.
 * The deleted text was: "RLSLOG, called one of the world's most popular release news sites, was taken offline in January 2009 through efforts by Web Sheriff. The site was shut down by complaints by Web Sheriff to its web site host and bandwidth provider." The sources used that Aprock says are unreliable are: Torrentfreak - this source This blog was already questioned at the Reliable Sources noticeboard in a similar type of usage. Reliable sources Noticeboard Archive 28  I'm surprised aprock did not find this in the article links. I'm not very savvy on such stuff but I did before I ever used it. It was deemed a mildly close call but acceptable. The other source used was Digital Media Wire as here. That seems reliable from the information on their about us page. Agadant (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:OWN concern
Yes, I'm an AC - having seen this article with amusement and the commentary for what, 2 years now, it is clear this article is captive of a single editor enamored with either the company, the authority over this article, or something else. The reluctance of the community to ban an editor meets with a single editors overwhelming need to control this article and shape it in a particular light - non-stop "close calls" and "acceptable but barely" and constant minor tweaks in response to legitimate concerns from other editors belie the problem: this article is captive of a single editor with less than a NPOV. Boooooooooo     — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.184.17 (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Controversy
This page is not about Taio Cruz, stop trying to spread your personal agenda across wikipedia. Stick to the topic. — Shaken And Stirred (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC).