User talk:Spiney deluxe

DreamHost
I just wanted to say thank you for using the Editor assistance/Requests process to ask about the DreamHost edits. Too many editors, when faced with a situation like this, respond by initiating a "revert" war. I was pleased to see your sensible approach (and eventual "self revert") after getting advice.

I am heavily involved in editing a great many articles, and I do not always have time to be as verbose as I would like to be when reverting something. In the case of your edit at DreamHost, I used only the edit summary to explain my actions, which may have seemed a little terse. The article in question has been something of a target for individuals wishing to discredit the subject (and also a favorite haunt of spammers trying to make a fast buck with referrals), so my edits there are typically of a hit-and-run nature. I hope you did not take offense.

Thank you for being a good contributor. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jessey, I just left a note on your page too. I'd like to present my thoughts about the Dreamhost edit as I'm not sure if I should go ahead thinking about it or just leave it alone.

I'm having somewhat of a moral dilemma about it. See, I was a victim of the horrible circumstances mentioned in the article. Yesterday. It happened to me and it was awful, verifiably awful, I am a first hand account. I realize that my experience isn't published anywhere, and to allege what happened to me at Wiki is entirely the wrong forum to do so.

I would still like to clarify the impression of the customer service at Dreamhost as genuinely as possible here at Wiki, as substantiated by at least one of the articles I cited, and as per the Wiki guidelines as best as I could discern under the guidelines I reviewed. As it is described right now the Dreamhost description is contrary to a great deal of the common experience of people doing business with this company. I don't believe it describes the nature and practices of this business precisely enough. The description seems perfectly constructed to be seamlessly accepted by the reader. It uses common knowledge as a base and is too easily digested by the reader, who by the nature of common knowledge of how ISPs work wouldn't discern how this ISP is differentiated from others. To at least a minor degree more, it needs to be refined to express the nature of this business in its differentiated nature from others. Right now it is not as accute as it should be.

I believed my edit as accomplishing that goal, but I couldn't decide in the end if it was just too much in one direction and took it down until I get some advice.

Here is what I have so far:

Customer Service
Dreamhost does not give customers call-in access to phone support and there is no phone number for which to contact them directly. All customer service is via email request or request from their server based panel, which queues for an email reply or a call-back depending on the choice of the user during the request proceedure.

END

I would also like to add: "Dreamhost markets a 24 hour guarantee reply, but there is no assurance in the policy. " But, I have to find where online that policy exists. I certainly would not include that until I can back it up. What do you make of all this?


 * How do you think this needs a helpme? It looks fine to me, except for the blog source. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:TenPoundHammer here. The text you are suggesting (for the first addition) is perfectly acceptable, but the source is a problem, because it doesn't conform to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. The second addition lacks any source, so should not be included. When there is a scarcity of reliable sources, it is better to simply leave it out until such time as a reliable source can be found.


 * Incidentally, the lack of a phone number is unremarkable, so not really notable. The vast majority of hosting companies rely on email and/or a ticket system due to the cost of maintaining a technical support phone system. Emails and messages can be properly routed to the right support staff, whereas phone calls cannot. This enables companies to handle a much greater volume of support requests than would otherwise be possible with a phone-based system. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jessey, ok, thanks for the help about the sources, I'm a bit confused... I thought the 1st was ok as it is already being used as a citation on the page? Hammer thinks it;s ok except for the blog source, isn't that what you got from his comment?


 * Actually, If a company can't be reached at all by any phone number, that's at least fairly remarkable- even an ISP. reader would not get that from the current entry. I didn't. The line shouldn't have it's own heading, customer service, though as the point is greater. In fact, when they added a call-back request feature, it made the news. Further, even though they are not considered credible sources, there is almost an endless number of people writing independently about this. That substantiates that something is occurring related to this business that should be document, but needs to be substantiated to suit this forum. That documentation seems readily available, I just need to consolidate it.


 * I'll figure out the best way to approach it... thanks for the help. If you don't mind, at some point before I do, can I get your take on it?

Spiney deluxe (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * DreamHost has had "callbacks" for many, many years. These were available for free with the (now defunct) "Code monster" plan and anything above that, and available at a price for any lesser plans. It is actually extremely unusual to have a contact number with either a webhost or a domain registrar (I have many years experience with multiple companies in two countries to back up that statement). Only the largest companies that can afford call centers are likely to have this kind of service, and most depend on email and support ticketing systems. My personal feeling is that this is a non-issue that is not notable enough to be included in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Andrew Marc Naomi Bag.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Andrew Marc Naomi Bag.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of David Welker


A tag has been placed on David Welker, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Praxidicae (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)