Talk:DreamHost/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

DreamHost Denies Cybersquatting Suit

Is it too early to add mention of DreamHost's latest notoriety? Judas278 (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Google is full of mentions to this matter so it might meet Wikipedias notability requirements and I have to say it is somewhat an interesting matter "Cybersquatting" what word will they invent next but yes I am in a somewhat awkward position, while I Oppose to this article "Dreamhost" existing at all I can't say that if it has to exist that the incident Judas mentions shouldn't be in it so the only thing I can really do for the time being is accept the existence of this article. Anyway I won't pass judgment on if a mention to this latest incident should be added to the article or not unless or until I see a proposed text or something of the sort.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, flash in the pan -- unless she can establish that it was actually DreamHost behind it, rather than a customer hosting at DreamHost.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably a customer who registered it through DreamHost and used a privacy service to conceal their actual identity, causing the plaintiff to go after the host as well as a "John Doe" suit against the unknown registrant. The domain doesn't seem to be hosted by Dreamhost any more (and has no site resolving there), so the case is probably moot. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Suppositions are original research, and not for the article. On the other hand, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." We don't have to forecast the outcome. The significant viewpoint is that a suit was filed, as several reliable sources published. This one even has a link so "The lawsuit can be viewed in its entirety here." Judas278 (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "significant viewpoint" until it's established that Dreamhost has more to do with it than hosting the domain, and maybe acting as the registrar in the first place, if they did. It's muckraking, and as such, has no place here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If they _lose_ the suit, that might be worthy of inclusion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read the whole thing. Nowhere did they assert that DreamHost had actually done anything. They were just the only people they could actually find to sue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to see a proposed text so that I could take a stand on this matter but the discussion here has raised another question, is it not allowed to mention this matter and to put that BOX This section describes a current affair..... and all that? Without taking a stand on if I support this being included in the article or not I must say that it is somewhat more excusable to add material to this article rather than to many others since it is almost completely empty.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if there were some merit to this matter (which there very obviously isn't), it would surely fall foul of WP:NOTNEWS. Come to think of it, many of the documented outages violate the same policy, since for the most part they turned out to be historically insignificant. Just sayin'. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed sentence (suggested revisions welcome): In May 2009, Mel_Gibson's girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva, filed a 100,000 USD suit against DreamHost and others, alleging they used oksanagrigorieva.com to exploit the name, photograph, likeness and persona of the internationally renowned artist. References: http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/060109_DreamHost_Denies_Cybersquatting_Suit , http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25591536-12335,00.html Judas278 (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested revision: Not news. Unnecessary to add. Drop it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this should be in the article but at this point I aint ruling it out, but if it is to be added to the article then I think that , Mel_Gibson's girlfriend, should be striken out also in an effort to adress the undue weight concerns of some editors the word internationally could also be removed making the piece smaller.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, then it reads "somebody once sued DreamHost for cyberstalking because they couldn't find the actual owner of the domain to serve the papers on."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Their denial of being sued is not likely to have historical significance, so I would suggest the article not cover it. As it stands, there is only trivial or incidental coverage over Dreamhost, even with regards to this incident, from reliable sources. The same is true over a couple other incidents mentioned in the article. I question whether Dreamhost even meets the WP:CORP inclusion guidelines.

• Billing errors are not extroardinary, nor was it notable in this case, except as a trivial news item, recall WP:NOT#News, also, even when an event is notable, individuals involved may not be.

I'm looking for reliable secondary sources (non-blog, non-forum) that demonstrate significant non-incidental, non-trivial coverage of Dreamhost, and having difficulty finding anything, so far. --Mysidia (talk)

RfC: Does the "Incidents" section have undue weight concerns?

Is undue weight being given to the "Incidents" section of DreamHost? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, in my opinion the "incidents" section should not be 50% of the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you for your response. I have proposed reducing this section to the following (also removing the "incidents" heading):

  In July, 2006, two power outages in the building housing DreamHost's datacenter caused significant disruption to services offered by DreamHost, Media Temple and MySpace. In June, 2007 approximately 700 websites and 3,500 FTP accounts hosted on DreamHost's servers were compromised. In response to the incident, the company made "numerous significant behind-the-scenes changes to improve internal security, including the discovery and patching to prevent a handful of possible exploits." On January 15, 2008, DreamHost accidentally billed some users for an extra year's worth of services, which they initially reported as $7.5 million in extra charges. The company later stated the final total was $2.1 million.

  Do you think that would be appropriate? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• The incidents section is less than 50% of the article when panel screenshot, info' box, references, external links, and all are included. Deleting well-sourced, historically significant (in context) material is not the solution. Also, the linked articles Media_Temple and MySpace have similar or larger sections devoted to criticism, issues or incidents. Judas278 (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  But including images, links and references in such an equation is hardly reasonable, of course. The "incidents" section is significantly more than 50% of the readable prose, which is what counts here. The Media Temple article has a tiny paragraph about "incidents" (less than a third of the amount documented here), and the MySpace article (which is not a web host) has a criticism section much smaller than their "features" section (and most criticism is concerned with generic social networking issues), so there really isn't any reasonable comparison that you can make with those articles. Clearly a reduction in the size and scope of the "incidents" section here is appropriate, and I think the suggested compromise that I have put forward warrants support. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The power outage doesnt appear to be particularly notable as it wasnt unique to DeamHost. The accidental billing doesnt appear to be particularly notable either as this sort of thing is not that rare. The websites offline for a few hours is not notable or uncommon. So in my opinion that leaves just the compromised account incident, which should actually be expanded as it doesnt actually explain how or what was compromised. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you that the compromised account incident seems to be inadequate, but we've had two problems with it: lack of sourcing and lack of information. I am a DreamHost customer, and my account was one of those compromised; however, I never really got a straight answer as to how it was compromised. DreamHost made a bunch of changes to improve security (akin to administering broad spectrum antibiotics), but I'm not sure they ever got to the bottom of the issue. That would explain why there is a lack of reporting as well. Agreed on the lack of notability on the other issues. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The "power outage" is a series of secondary-source-reported power outages from 2005 through 2007, when sources reported the company took actions. Previously this article characterized ONE outage as a disaster, with benefits. They had a long history of major power outages, and the sources should be represented here in unbiased fashion, as the article does currently. A Single Typo (fact, though not shown in the article) causing millions of dollars of improper charges, for a year of service, for thousands of customers, seems unusual to me. DreamHost is prominent in this search. Can you show us other similar incidents? Websites offline for a few hours may be common, but here Another Typo is the "common mode failure". As I read WP policies, we are supposed to impartially present information from secondary sources. Our opinions of what should be explained, or what is "common" is not important. Judas278 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Google search yields poor quality sources like blogs. A Google news search with the same parameters yields zero hits. It would seem that at least 2 additional editors who are uninvolved with this article disagree with you. One is an administrator, and the other is an admin on the Commons project. Clearly a consensus is forming for reducing the number of "incidents" to only those that are notable. You rejected the compromise text I suggested, and now even that is viewed as including too many of the "incidents". Unless we can all accept some form of compromise, it is difficult to see how we can productively move forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed AfD

AfD resulted in a keep.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As discussed by Mysidia above (and others previously), there are questions whether this article meets minimum standards for being an article. Previous decisions (2) to not delete this article relied primarily on unreliable data (numbers of domains "hosted"), and support by DreamHost promoters. I agree with deleting this article. Should it be taken for another AfD? Judas278 (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I discussed this recently only to receive two answers one from you and a negative one, I suggest that we get an RfC on this particular matter and then take it from there. Thoughts?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Discussing whether you should have a discussion seems a bit redundant. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Agree with Sarek. This article would quickly survive a speedy delete or a PROD, if you feel like an AfD is necessary, file one. The opposing opinions on this page are well-documented, but if you believe other currently uninvolved wikipedia editors would agree the subject isn't notable enough for an article, file one. Discussing it with the usual suspects isn't going to do change anything. Dayewalker (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Agreed. File the AfD if you feel it is necessary. Also, please don't describe fellow editors as "DreamHost promoters". I've received blocks for far less. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Step One currently requires admin action to post the notice on this article. From above, it looks like we have the consensus needed for that notice. Judas278 (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Anyone can nominate and list an article for deletion. It does not require administrator action. You just need to wait until the page protection expires. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC) And I don't think this sort of thing is at all appropriate either. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Proposed AfD Statement: This company is non-notable, they fail both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. It is nearly impossible to find reliable secondary sources (non-blog, non-forum) that demonstrate significant non-incidental, non-trivial coverage of DreamHost. 3 of 4 articles from the first deletion discussion are gone. Very few other Web hosting companies in the Category have articles. The primary reference, webhosting.info, supporting "notability" previously was deleted from this article for questionable reliability, and the "data" is likely skewed by Domain_tasting and domain parking. Suggested changes welcome before doing the EditProtected Template to get the ball rolling. Judas278 (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I couldn't have put it any better myself, only other thing I can think of mentioning is the fact that Meatpuppets likely effected the outcomes of the previous AfD's something along the line of: It is likely that previous AfD's were effected by Meatpuppets, see 1 and 2. Might be a good addition to the AfD and might not, if you see it as none beneficial then just let your suggested AfD rip.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Suggested changes, Judas: it's irrelevant what happened to the other articles in the first AfD, so leave that out, but paste the original AfD link down here so the admin who posts for you can include it without having to hunt for it. "Data is likely skewed" -- speculation shouldn't be included in the AfD, so leave that out, too. Anything else, I'll challenge at the AfD, if necessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Also, I'd leave out 194x's "meatpuppetry" accusation -- that was then, this is now. Go on the merits, or not at all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC) He can feel free to leave it out, include it or change it but if previous AfDs are supposed to be mentioned then it's also important to mention that they were likely "fixed". Also these are not accusations but admitted wrongdoings as you can see from THIS LINK!!!. Also I don't see anything wrong with this Skewed deal.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC) If you have a reference to establish that the data is incorrect, then show what it is -- otherwise, it's original research. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Conversely, the same original research, primary data, was quoted directly and indirectly from start to finish in the last deletion discussion, and is likely to play a part again. So I'm trying to address it from the start. I'd like to believe "currently uninvolved wikipedia editors" would decide the fate, but I know "supporters" or whatever I should call them will show up, as they have the last 2 times. Judas278 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Revised AfD Statement: This company is non-notable, they fail both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. It is nearly impossible to find reliable secondary sources (non-blog, non-forum) that demonstrate significant non-incidental, non-trivial coverage of DreamHost. Very few other Web hosting companies in the Web hosting Category have articles. In the most recent Deletion Discussion the primary source referenced to support "notability", webhosting.info, was deleted from this article for questionable reliability, as discussed here on the talk page. Further, this 'primary' source "data" is likely skewed by Domain_tasting and domain parking, as acknowledged by the source. Thanks for the comments and suggestions, which I've tried to use. For now, someone else can run with it if desired. I recently observed Wikipedia likely taking useful action, and I'm waiting to see how that plays out here, as the edit block is again off. Should the article again be reduced to a poorly sourced "advertisement" this will only strengthen the case for deletion. Judas278 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) While I don't agree with the AfD statement as above, you've addressed my issues nicely, and I have no objection to the above wording.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for inappropriately bringing up that totally unrelated ArbCom process. You can rest assured that nothing happening at ArbCom will make any noticeable difference to my contributions here. You might as well go ahead and do the AfD nomination so that we can get that little waste of time out of the way and move forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Scjessey, are you saying that because you don't plan on violating one revert/week here, or because you don't think it applies?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC) The former. Despite what ArbCom seems to think, there is very little actual edit warring in my 10,000+ edit history. Having a one revert per week restriction won't make a noticeable difference to my editing behavior. This is especially so here because there are none of those ambiguous BLP-related reversions to cloud the issue. Also, the "must talk about reversion" rule won't change anything because that is part of my editing S.O.P. - that vast majority of my edits are in article talk because I prefer to fully discuss proposed changes before making them. As far as this article is concerned, it should be business as usual. So let's have at it, shall we? The opinions we have collected from non-involved editors have clearly confirmed our position that the current "incidents" section is too long and contains too much stuff of little significance. Perhaps my proposed changes previously discussed don't go far enough? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC) I strongly disagree with the above. Judas278 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Which part do you strongly disagree with? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC) (OD) I think we're veering off track again, this section was for discussing the upcoming AfD. I'd suggest that since a wording that everyone seemed to approve of was posted here two days ago, the AfD should be posted so we can be done with either a) this article, or b) this discussion. Incidental discussions don't belong here, and are just serving to prolong a non-productive thread. Dayewalker (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC) OK. AfD is posted. Judas278 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Free application hosting

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

Free application hosting

In 2009, the company began offering free web application hosting. Either with their own domain, or with a free subdomain, customers are able to make use of a number of open source applications, such as WordPress and MediaWiki without charge. The service is similar to, and can be integrated with, the Google App Engine. Through a control panel, customers are able to manage their applications or upgrade to the standard, fully-managed hosting service.

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

• Strong Oppose This definitively does not belong in any way or any form in the article it comes across as spam or advertising and is highly inappropriate.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  Do you have any policy-based objections, or suggestions for improvement? Simply saying "strong oppose" to every single one of my proposals is extremely unhelpful, and not at all in the spirit of a collaborative project like Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The same information is already at linked articles: Web_hosting_service. It does not need detailed repeating in this article. This article does not need to contain every factoid three times. This article should not be an advertisement. See: Comparison_of_web_hosting_control_panels for plenty of similar panels. The panel here is nothing special, and doesn't need repeated mention and description. The interpretation of the source is biased - not mentioning "beta" status, limited availability, and probable future $50/year charge. Judas278 (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, Judas, if you oppose adding anything to the article, asserting it should be deleted for lack of content kind of lacks credibility.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith here, adding this material to the article isn't appropriate since offering this sort of service is almost standard for web hosting companies and it would be inappropriate to make this article look like an ad for dreamhost since wikipedia articles are not meant to serve that purpose.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is no longer possible to assume good faith in the face of such blocking tactics. Clearly, this article needs improvement. More information about the company and its services can be culled from the reliable sources available, but if it is always described as "advertising" I am at a loss as to how to move forward productively. At what point does this tendentious opposition become unacceptable to the project? We've had mediation, and RfC and now a third AfD that all indicate that the article should be improved with more detail, but such improvement is being blocked. Administrator guidance would be extremely welcome. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've yet to be given a policy-based reason why the proposed text is inappropriate. Unless someone can do that, I see no reason why I shouldn't just go ahead and add it, since that fits in with comments at the AfD. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are unable to assume good faith and seeing good faith edits as blocking tactics then perhaps you should consider excusing yourself from the article for some time since if this article does indeed require attention and the material that you've mentioned then other editors will surely help it along and improve it without your involvement.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying "oppose" to every proposal, without being able to cite policy-based reasons for such opposition, is not "good faith" editing. It is tendentious opposition. I am attempting to improve the article, not block such attempts or collaborate on its hoped-for demise. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Collaborate might not have been the best word, I'm not English like you are and I'm never going to pay your Icesave loan EVER! but anyway back to the point I was merely asking that he discussed the AfD text with me nothing more and I see nothing wrong with having done so. I do not want to fight regarding anything really I am just trying to have a positive influence on the article. I genuinely think that adding that material would make the article sound too much like an advertisement and that doing so is therefor negative as for policy-based reasons well I am actually pretty sure that there do exist some policy based reasons for not having texts that looks like an advertisement or spam in an article but seeing as I am not the most veteran wikipedia editor around I don't know what it is and I haven't really devoted too much time looking for it. But here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information look at number 7 .--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in the policy link you provided (although the link target is wrong) that prohibits the inclusion of the proposed text, and your belief that it makes it "sound too much like an advertisement" is not relevant here. The fact remains that it is absolutely essential to provide information that distinguishes one entity from another (in this case, one hosting company from another), and this is a perfect example. Otherwise you would have the ludicrous situation where all articles on web hosts (and anything else, for that matter) sound the same and are basically just brief summaries. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

That's a mischaracterization. Your proposed addition framed the use of Gmail as if it was a "negative" thing. It needed to be changed for neutrality. In the case of the latest proposed text, we are (once again) talking about introducing non-controversial details that help distinguish this web host from others. The details about beta testing and pricing are now out of date, because the source dates back to the original announcement. Bear in mind that this is a proposed addition that can be refined, and we should not include details that we know to be false, even if the quality of the sources that can verify this isn't of the highest standard (DreamHost's own website, for example). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My good friend Scjessey will you please listen to reason and calm yourself down. Almost all webhosting companies offer free application hosting and adding this text to the article would simply be absurd, most people already know what webhosting companies are and have to offer and if they don't then they should take a look at an article like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webhost not this one but if we were infact to add that text that you propose to this article then we would have to add that text to all webhosting articles and wikipedia it just simply isn't a directory or something meant for that sort of thing. If you are starting to lose your cool over this then just take a deep breath and give the matter some calm thought it's not like this is some big deal.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is patently false. FREE application hosting is extremely unusual for web hosts to offer. It is the sort of thing normally reserved for large companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple and internet service providers like Comcast. Your notion of it being offered by "almost all" web hosts is incorrect. Also, please do not use this talk page for making patronizing comments toward me - I am not your "friend" and I do not need you to be telling me how to behave. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Editor Restriction Discussion

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

SPAs don't generally get to pull that card, sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This talk page should not be used for meta discussions about who should and who shouldn't be editing. That being said, there are no "allegations" of a conflict of interest. I have consistently stated (including on my user page) that I am a DreamHost customer - I have never hidden this fact, so use of the word "allegations" indicates impropriety that does not exist. I also edit other articles concerning products and services that I use regularly, so what of it? What about the conflict of interest that a former, disgruntled customer has, who only edits this article? Clearly that is of far greater concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above when the discussion for the AfD seemed to go on, if you think you have a case, please file it in the correct place. Take it to ANI or file an RfC, but no lasting decision on an editor's behavior will be reached on an article talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

There was no bot abuse, as you recognize below that the consensus was for changing the archive time to 45 days.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The initial change of 45 days by Scjessey was done without any consensus and was repeated despite being reverted due to a lack of one. The fact that there does exist a consensus now doesn't mean that bot abuse didn't take place repeatedly despite warnings.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot only ran once on this article, so "repeatedly" is incorrect. And last time, there was a consensus against you, you just refused to recognize it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot only ran once but its setting was altered repeatedly without a consensus so repeatedly is QUITE correct. There never existed any consensus against the previous setting and claiming so is simply laughable.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel (admin) called for a shorter page. PhilKnight (mediator) agreed with a 45-day archive. And obviously, Scjessey and I supported periods shorter than that. Granted, 4 to (2 or 3) is not a consensus for 45 days, but neither is (2 or 3) to 4 a consensus for 90 days.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are any more calls for me to be "restricted" by SPAs and anonymous editors, I shall have no choice but to use CAPITAL LETTERS and bold type to voice my objections! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

ARE YOU BUCKING FOR another! BLOCK????? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

CAPITAL LETTERS, bold type, italics, exclamation points! AND threats of blocks. Most impressive! I know when I'm beaten. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

News flash: uncontroversial edits don't need to be discussed first. Besides, WP:BRD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm quite happy to engage in a consensus-building discussion for anything that might possibly be construed as controversial, but neither of those edits would register on anybody's Controversialometer. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored archive

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

In addition, I have added an option to the archiving template to make it easy for the archives to be searched. This should satisfy any claims about "censorship" or "truth suppression" or any other similar nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming quite tiresome. You have no business messing with the bots settings or archiving this discussion. There is a consensus in place for a 90 day automatic archive rate, that means that the bot and the bot alone is supposed to archive discussion on this talkpage according to that setting. If you disagree with the consensus then you can always try to build a new one for a shorter archive rate or for manual archiving what ever you'd want I guess but unless there is such a consensus in place it is highly inappropriate that you mess with these matters.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your claim of "consensus" is complete nonsense. No such consensus exists, and there is no excuse for your highly disruptive behavior. This overlong talk page is making it extremely difficult for editors to contribute to this discussion, particularly those using small screen devices. The extension to the ridiculous 90-days was (instead of the default 7) was done without consensus in the first place, and administrators recommended a 45-day setting. Once again, your problematic behavior actively blocks productive contributions. Archiving is necessary, and the search box makes the entire archive easily accessible. I expect you to self-revert immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, it was the bot that performed the archiving. The bot and the bot alone. The setting of 90 days was preventing the archive from performing as intended. Your actions have created a duplicate in the archive, which means the archived material must be deleted from this talk page to fix the error. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Really, I don't understand the hubbub over the talk page, and keeping old discussions up three months past the date of the last comment. Since all the discussion began here, which is primarily between half a dozen editors, the talk page is over 279K, which is longer than the Barack Obama article and talk page combined. Why is it so important to have this much old information on a page that's at AfD? Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it isn't important. Especially when the archive is fully searchable and available to all. No logic in it whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

194x, other than current consensus apparently being for a 90 day archive, do you have a problem with the archives happening on a 45 day basis? I understand this is a contentious talk page, but I don't understand why a minor article needs 279K of talk page only archived every three months? Would there be a problem with archiving the page after the AfD (assuming it results in a keep, of course) is finished? Dayewalker (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is no "consensus" for a 90-day archive. 3 users (one of which is an SPA) want this overlong archive because of claims that shortening the page will "bury evidence" - obviously an unfounded notion. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

90 day archive is ridiculous: I just undid the restoration of the archived content. This page is finally manageable: leave it that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I support Sarek's changes. Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I also support Sarek's changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's three regular editors -- sounds like we're well on the way to that new consensus you were asking for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, problem with that is that you folks complained about manual archiving too. Given that no archiving scheme is going to actually make you happy, I see no reason not to go with "if it hasn't been touched in a month and a half, it's not important enough to stick in people's faces". Remember, talk pages are about the article, not the subject, so trying to keep negative information about the subject visible is a violation of the talk page guidelines. I'm not trying to hide anything here, because I'm perfectly capable of reading logs and archives to see what was said earlier.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, Scjessey, 3 to 2 is not a "firmly established consensus".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrator SheffieldSteel complained about the talk page being too large, so one could safely assume support. Also, 194 might want to be mindful of WP:3RR. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) Based on the size of the Talk page, some form of archiving is necessary. That said, my personal preference is for an automatic archiving scheme, since it requires no human intervention. In this case, a bot also has the advantage that it can't be claimed to be biased. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion: We don't really give 3Os for pages with five editors, but I'll chime in anyway. I'm with Sarek and Sheffield on this: automatic archiving is definitely needed. The 285k version of this page is incredibly long and unwieldy; it even breaks the style of the page (border on the left). 45 day automatic archiving seems like a reasonable solution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

We established the consensus last time around, but you and Judas refused to recognize it, and we didn't push it. The file was much bigger now, though, so I couldn't let it remain as it was again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus established since the last discussion took place regarding this matter, what you and Scjessey did was obvious bot abuse and quite disruptive. You have been warned now, if you Ever touch the bot settings again without first establishing a consensus then it WILL! have consequences.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're WELCOME! to try.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think "warnings" and "threats" of this kind are appropriate for Wikipedia. I have received blocks for far less - from Sarek, in fact! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Rackspace

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

Sadly it seems that I have my hands full with this article alone and won't be able to attend to Rackspace for some time, it is however possible that Judas will have some success in dealing with the disruptive actions of Scjessey and that could possibly free up time so that I could take a closer look at this Rackspace article that you're talking about.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop falsely claiming my actions are "disruptive". It sounds lame coming from someone who edit wars over archiving (diff1, diff2, diff3) and strongly opposes article improvement of any kind (diff1, diff2), preferring instead to collaborate on an article's demise (diff). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 194x again. You both (Sarek and Scjessey) do seem disruptive lately. Judas278 (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well fortunately, how we "seem" to you and 194 is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of File Hosting Category

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

Sorry, but that's not a realistic excuse for exclusion. Four of the largest file hosting companies in the world (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple) aren't on the list either. Do you have any proposals for improving the article, or do you plan to continue your obstructionist strategy of steady opposition and meta arguments? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You want to include it. Provide a source for inclusion. What next, a paragraph on this too. What notice was taken of this company's "file hosting"? It's a standard service captured under Generic Web Hosting Services. An encyclopedia does not need every trivial aspect repeated like this is an advertisement page. Judas278 (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a non-controversial addition based on the company's Files Forever service for customers who wish to securely sell DRM-free files. The service isn't significant enough to warrant a paragraph in the article (yet), but there can be no reasonable objection to the category. Categories are necessary navigational aids that do not require sourcing. Please stop obstructing article improvement. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Company Links, Again, "consensus" before

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

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

Proposed lock of article

I propose that the article be locked until the arbitration is done and that discussions regarding the article here on the talkpage also be slowed down or paused. If I or anyone else is infact having this huge negative effect on the development of this article then it would be much better to wait until the arbitration committee rids this article of that individuals participation and to continue developing the article afterwards.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I strongly oppose this proposal for several reasons:

1. The article is not under immediate threat of vandalism.
2. There is no edit war going on.
3. Informal mediation is still underway, and may yet prove productive.
4. Some arbitrators have quite rightly indicated that further discussion should take place in the form of specific requests for comment and advice from currently uninvolved administrators.
5. Some arbitrators have quite rightly indicated that additional dispute resolution at WP:CNB (and perhaps WP:COI) would be preferable to arbitration.
6. The existing form of the article continues to include the overlarge and non-neutral "incidents" section disliked by uninvolved editors in the recent RfC.

This article needs more editors, not less. More editors means more ideas, more people looking for sources, more people checking the work of others, and greater transparency and neutrality. Locking the article would prevent (or at least hinder) the introduction of more editors to help restore a productive environment. All discussion should focus on matters of content. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 194x's protection suggestion, and recently asked our mediator to do it. At the same time, I generally agree with the new attitudes being stated by Scjessey, but not some details like RfC interpretation. Judas278 (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

When you say you disagree with my "RfC interpretation", are you referring to what I said above about the opinion of the arbitration committee, or with the comments made with respect to the "incidents" section? In the spirit of fostering good relations, I will try to ignore your "new attitudes" characterization. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Admission of guilt It's like this the other day Scjessey suggested something and I responded to it with a *Strong oppose and some explanation but that's not really the way one is supposed to respond to such things, one is rather to try and discuss the matters and such but the thing is with this user Scjessey is that he repeatedly suggest adding advertisement material to the article and such and it has been discussed repeatedly before but he just doesn't take a hint so well one just simply loses his patience with him and doesn't assume good faith like one is mandated to do cause good faith seems so far fetched in his case and instead just tries to save some time by voicing his opposition in the clearest way possible. I also want to state that when it comes to this article that a new attitude simply isn't credible either. There you have it I'm guilty.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject help

I just posted over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies to try to get some extra eyes here and break the logjam. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should say that. I've just been looking over various WikiProjects to see what might be a best fit. I was also thinking about "computing" (and/or subproject of "websites"). I'd welcome any proactive community effort to attract more bodies to this article (apart from direct canvassing, of course). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a template to the top of the page. It automatically adds this article to the list awaiting assessment. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also added the "companies portal" template to the external links section of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

wikis and spanish blogs as reliable sources

per [[1]]: the thing i love about spanish blogs is how reliable they are. the thing i love about wikis that anyone can register for and edit, is how reliable they are. let's edit war over this one!

I linked to a particular revision that had been edited by Josh Jones, one of the founders, so "anyone can edit" doesn't apply. I don't know how reliable the Spanish source is, but it establishes world-wide interest.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

as an admin, i'd hope that you would know how wikipedia feels about blogs in situations like this. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

well, if you don't, i'll just tell you. the spanish language blog is not a good source and should be removed. and the wiki source is just a weasely way to add some more advertising into this article. who cares about their newest promotion? it's not notable, especially if only a blog and dreamhost's wiki only mention it. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not a good source? How do you know it's not the Spanish equivalent to TechCrunch? "It's a blog" doesn't automatically disqualify it: if you have a particular objection, the reliable sources noticeboard is that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

how about you prove that it *is* reliable? your spanish must not be as good as mine, because i took one look at it and discovered it's an unreliable blog, which is why i removed it. you added it back without knowing anything about the site, or that it even was a blog. the burden is on you. the reliable sources noticeboard is that way. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP. Cast-iron sourcing is preferable, but surely not required. It would be fair to say that I'm not entirely happy with the standard of sourcing that we have for this particular service. It isn't controversial, so I don't think it needs to be deleted; however, I would still like to see better sourcing if it becomes available in the future. As far as the wiki source is concerned, this "announcement" of the service may be more appropriate. The page is locked so that only administrators and sysops can edit it, but you can still link to a specific version for added reliability. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

spanish blogs don't become reliable because you don't speak spanish. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Wikis are generally not considered reliable sources and should be removed. Blogs are sometimes considered reliable so can be used. Non-English sourcing is fine - it sometimes helps to supply a translation if they are questioned. As a general rule the more exceptional a claim the stronger the sourcing should be. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I know there's a problem with wikis: that's why I found a revision on the official wiki edited by one of the co-founders, instead o just linking to the whole page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

non notable spanish-language blog with no editorial oversight. plus random, pseudo anonymous contributors with names like 'cyberfrancis'. but don't listen to me; i only speak spanish and actually understand the site. edit war instead and then tell me the burden is on me to prove it's unreliable, when the burden is actually on you to prove it's reliable. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As Banjeboi noted, exceptional claims require stronger sourcing. In this case, however, we aren't talking about anything even approaching an exceptional claim. We are looking for sources that prove the existence of something non-controversial, rather than looking for sources that establish notability. Once the notability of the subject has been established (see 3 previous AfDs), whether or not a specific detail is notable is less significant. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Projecting forward, will you want to re-publish their entire marketing and PR campaigns here in this article, since you can find a self-published blog or wiki article by a founder, for each campaign? Is this the purpose of wikipedia.? Judas278 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC).

To whom is this question addressed? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna go out on a limb but these repeated attempts to include advertising material by Scjessey can in no way be considered good faith edits since he should be fully aware that this sort of conduct is not acceptable.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Admin Bjweeks said the File hosting category should be backed up by article text. I added the article text, with citations. What's "not acceptable" here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And I swear I'm going to metaphorically snap that limb off and bash somebody over the head with it if anyone accuses me of "advertising" again - especially when it wasn't me who added the text. Let ArbCom draw their own conclusions, 194, and please cease your bad faith assertions immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How exactly do you 'metaphorically' snap someone's limb off and smash them over the head with it? also, he's right - it's advertising. what are you going to 'metaphorically' do to me? Theserialcomma (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

3 things for you:

1. Metaphor - knowledge is power
2. Nothing I do on Wikipedia is "advertising". The Arbitration Committee will confirm that.
3. Stop goading other editors. It does you no credit. ArbCom will not be impressed by your assumptions of bad faith either.

-- Scjessey (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry. was that a good faith metaphor about smashing someone's head? those literary devices confuse me sometimes. Theserialcomma (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You can hardly blame me for making an angry (but harmless) response to yet another accusation of bad faith and "advertising", since there have been so many. If editors would restrict themselves to discussion of content, rather than each other, we wouldn't be in this bloody mess in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Time for a "told you so". To the unanswered question - can we duplicate summaries of all the advertising and incidents the founders have blogged and wiki'd about? Or only if they showed up in at least one other semi-blog too. Judas278 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As you will see from this comment I made earlier in the thread, the quality of the sourcing concerns me - just not enough to warrant an exclusion of the information (due to its totally uncontroversial nature). I am not sure what you are talking about in the second part of your comment because it doesn't seem to refer to Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

File hosting information

Judas has just removed the information added by Sarek on file hosting, with the misleading edit summary of "most discussion disagrees with the addition, so removing." I am not going to restore it because I've pledged to avoid edit warring; however, I would like to hear a better explanation from Judas for this provocative edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

ThreeTwo people have reverted to keep it in: two have reverted to keep it out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to see it in, but I'm not going to get involved in an edit war over it. I'd like to see better sourcing, but although it has plenty of coverage on teh intarwebs, it is all low-quality sources from what I can see. Most of the coverage revolves around the "anti-DRM" aspect of the service (which was predictably popular). I don't think the fact of this service can be disputed, and it certainly isn't "controversial", so I see no reason why it should be excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(OD) You can count actual reverts, or you can count editors discussion comments. If you count editors comments, "most discussion disagrees with the addition, so" it should be removed. The addition uses unreliable sources, and presents it with a biased positive description. It does not say it is still a "beta" service after 3 years, for regular customers-only, as even the first unreliable source says. The 2nd source is also selectively an old wiki source, where the newest version shows there are 20 unanswered questions (although the page says only 3, another inaccuracy showing unreliability). The wiki page is locked, so it's not even clear this "beta" service for customers only is still being developed. And none of this original research really matters, because reliable sources have taken about zero notice of this "service". Question remains: how much advertising material will be repeated here with poor sourcing, and will "incidents" with similar sourcing also be added, for balance? Judas278 (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Count discussion? Ok. ThreeTwo editors agree with keeping it in, twothree editors want to take it out, one doesn't say. No consensus to delete. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This file hosting while interesting is trivial/none notable and the sources regarding it are also not the strongest, it also appears to me that the portrayal of it is flawed.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What part of the portrayal is flawed? I thought I got it right... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Me, Theserialcomma, 194x makes 3 opposing this poorly sourced add. You and Scjessey, who also stated the sources are poor, makes 2 supporting the add. A couple others have not firmly stated a position, but don't exactly support the sourcing. To repeat: The portrayal leaves out "beta", for regular customers only, and many (at least 20) unanswered questions about the service, including high cost. Given poor, selective sources and flawed biased portrayal, the add shouldn't. Judas278 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with addressing some of Judas278's concerns. How about this:

In 2006, DreamHost began offering a file hosting service they call "Files Forever". It allows users to store files on their servers "forever" after paying a one-time storage fee, and then redistribute or sell them, with DreamHost handling the credit card transaction. The service, described by the company as a beta version, is only available to existing customers.

-- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect to "unanswered questions" about the service, the DreamHost Wiki is not setup to respond to questions - those are supposed to be addressed via regular support avenues (and the article is tagged as such). It is entirely possible that all those questions have been answered elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Work to consensus seems gone. There are 3 people here saying the sourcing is so poor you should not add the advertisement. Another (Scjessey) says it's poor sourcing but that's ok. There's now a link directly to another "sign-up" here page (files.dreamhost.com), which is clearly self-serving for the company. If anyone did anything similar towards another "for profit" site, the link would be deleted immediately. The "Unanswered_questions" section is already in Sarek's preferred version of the poor source, so we don't need to ignore the many unanswered questions in the latest version. The original research explanation of company policy is irrelevant and makes the proponent appear as a company spokesperson. The impartial interpretation of the 2 versions of the unreliable wiki source is: they asked for questions, they got too many, and they left them unanswered. Judas278 (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I understand the desire by a couple of editors to reduce the more verbose version we started with, but the end result reads poorly. I would like to see this rewritten for clarity and improved flow. Perhaps this will work, as it combines concepts from both versions:

In 2006, the company began offering a beta version of a file hosting service they call "Files Forever". Existing customers can store files "forever" after paying a one-time storage fee, and may redistribute or sell them with DreamHost handling the transactions.

Note that in this version, I have restored the additional citation from the earlier version. No valid reasons was given for its removal, and it confirms the "beta" and "customers only" information desired by Judas. Comments about this being a "self-serving" link are without merit - this is the home page of the service, so if it isn't cited as a reference (which makes more sense) it should be placed in the list of external links instead. I'm sure the former option is preferred. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's been no response from anyone since I posted this a couple of days ago. Since there have been no objections, I will go ahead and implement it. Please don't revert without prior discussion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)