Wikipedia

Talk:Dan Wagner/Archive 2

< Talk:Dan Wagner
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Alsee in topic RfC for Dan Wagner Updates
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

June 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago96 comments15 people in discussion

I've reverted the recent changes to the introduction paragraph to the previous agreed content. No new information has been presented to warrant the change. The value of the sale is mentioned in the dialog section. 109.169.67.207 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC) .

Venda was a different company to MAID/Dialog. Venda was sold in 2014 and Dialog was sold in 2000. They are different successful businesses that we created by Mr Wagner and sold.

Profile Picture

User: Techtrek has posted a picture of the subject[1], declaring it as their own work. Does this not suggest an undeclared interest in the subject? PR representative perhaps?5.226.137.179 (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is the same picture used on the subject's blog, https://www.dan-wagner.com/. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Wagner#/media/File:Dan_Wagner_-_UK_Serial_Tech_Entrepreneur.jpg
I have nominated that image for deletion as a copyright violation. If User:Techtrek indeed is the copyright holder, we'll need confirmation via OTRS for how he comes to own the image Mr Wagner uses on his personal website. Huon (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I notice User: Techtrek has re-posted the exact same picture of the subject without explaining the above noted undeclared interest or advising in response to User: Huon queries about how he owns the image. User:Ol king col (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits 26th June 2017

I added a section to Powa relating to the investment from Wellington. Not sure if it belongs on this page or Powa. Given that there's a fairly large section dedicated to the original investment, seems fair that this be alongside it.

There is widespread coverage of a $2bn litigation beteeen shareholders in Powa and Wellington Management and Ben White, a former director. Either this is added or the page should remain silent but it cannot out forward comments from Wellington whilst ignoring the other perspective from shareholders and management.

By all means, give balance to this section, but I'd advice against omitting it all together given the extensive coverage of Powa's collapse. You may also want to consider this from FT Alphaville regarding the subject being taken to bankruptcy court. https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/06/07/2165045/ex-powa-director-battles-dan-wagner-over-unpaid-loan/?mhq5j=e2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.226.137.179 (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This was all I could find relating to court action between the subject and Ben White, http://www.cityam.com/252672/powa-play-dan-wagner-ready-legal-battle-former-director-ben, dated 1/11/16 5.226.137.179 (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I've updated the article to reflect court proceedings relating to Powa & the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.226.137.179 (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I also removed the mention of the venda sale to oracle. This has been discussed at length above. As the subject wasn't involved in the sale, shouldn't be on his page.

The subject was the chairman, founder and largest shareholder in Venda at the time of the sale to Oracle so very much relevant to his profile.

That is deliberately misleading. Venda was sold to Netsuite in July 2014. Netsuite was sold to Oracle June 2016. This has been discussed at length in the section above. Do not conflate the two. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Techtrek the venda edit 'The business became European market leader and was sold to NetSuite, a division of Oracle Corporation in 2014.' is inaccurate and you're trying to conflate the Venda sale to Netsuite with the Netsuite sale to Oracle. Netsuite was not a division of Oracle until 2016, 2 years after the sale of Venda to Netsuite. This is factually wrong and should be removed. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
For the Venda section, we have two choices, follow the lead of User: SmartSE (see January edits & discussions) and exclude the sale altogether as there is no mention of the subject in the sales proceedings according to sourced articles (the subject was not CEO at the time of the sale), or include it, removing reference to Oracle as it's irrelevant for the reasons stated above. If the consensus is to keep the sale, in keeping with the rest of the article and references to sales, include the price as $50.5m quoted http://www.crn.com/news/cloud/300073512/netsuite-details-50-5m-deal-for-venda-in-q2-results.htm, https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/03/23/2157473/dont-call-it-another-dan-wagner-comeback/?mhq5j=e2 & the Venda page.

As a side note, I noticed the fresh edits (and attempted promotional language which has been removed by another editor) coincides with the subject appearing in the news recently, http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3193955.5.226.137.179 (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The intro is extremely relavant to the subject given it is a new launch of a business that appears to be getting widespread coverage and momentum.

Except you make no mention of this, choosing only to highlight a subjective quote "the founder of British eCommerce." which was rightly removed as WP:PEACOCK. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't help but feel the intro change was partly motivated by the google profile card on the search result page of the subject, which now reads 'Daniel Maurice Wagner is a British Internet entrepreneur who has been called 'the founder of British eCommerce'. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to encourage the use of the talk page to avert another edit war and strongly encourage other editors to engage here before making changes.5.226.137.179 (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree

Unfortunately, another edit war has broken out on the article, and there is little attempt to resolve this with other editors on this page. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. There's dispute resolution if you cannot achieve a consensus on the talk page. Huon (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This user 5.226.137.179 (also known as Ol King Col) has been vandalising this page since he was fired by Dan Wagner in 2014. His vendetta is relentless as he is still out of work (unsurprisingly - because no one wants to employ a deranged fool). Please review his cynical edits designed to discredit Mr Wagner and his achievements. Notice the disproportionate text on Powa and the deletions of text on Venda - the European market leader in eCommerce founded by Mr Wagner and sold to NetSuite now owned by Oracle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.225.26 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll block you for personal attacks for a few days. This is no way to talk about other editors. It's insulting, it's free of evidence, and even if it were neither of that, it's WP:OUTING. Further insults or accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence will lead to escalating blocks. Huon (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The change Techtrek made [1] to the Venda section uses the phrase 'European market leader', which is also used by User: 213.120.225.26. A remarkably similar POV, or Is the a case of sockpuppertry? 5.226.137.179 (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's keep this civil shall we? All edits done by myself have been sourced. The size of Powa section relates to it's prominence given it was once a "unicorn" startup which collapsed. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, I am not User:Ol king col. This accusation has been made many times with no evidence. The bans handed out on this article tend to be those 'fluffing' the article in favour of the subject. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
As Dan Wagner has been back in the news I wondered how long until the predictable whitewashing of his page would take, so have been keeping my eye on the page and now I see my name is being thrown around. For the record user User:5.226.137.179 is nothing to do with me. My view, for what it's worth, is that the line about Mr Wagner being 'the founder of British eCommerce' is that as it is sourced probably can be quoted, but as it is from one source, it does not deserve it's placing so high in the article. The introduction should be his most notable achievements which in this case must surely be the creation of MAID / Dialog, it's subsequent sale & the circumstances around it, and his recent escapades with Powa and it's administration it is what he is best known for. "the founder of British ecommerce" claim may be suitable for containment in the general body of the text, perhaps under Dialog as it's what it refers to. Ol king col (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see above. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have desisted from making any more reverts to the main article until an admin can review (which means all my changes have been rolled back by the other editors) 5.226.137.179 (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I have protected the page for a few days so that a consensus can be reached here on the talk page. It would likely help to structure the discussion so that different issues don't get thrown together. The protection explicitly is not an endorsement of the current revision. Personally I think both sides have been POV-pushing inappropriately, just in different directions, but I won't take a hand in editing the content. WP:BLP/N may be a good venue to get some uninvolved, experienced editors to take a look at the page. Huon (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits for discussion

Following on from User:Huon's suggestion to add structure around the discussed points:

Dialog

The sale figure of Dialog has been quoted as being worth $500m but the FT state it was $275m, https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/03/23/2157473/dont-call-it-another-dan-wagner-comeback/?mhq5j=e2. Please can the article be updated to reflect this. Also, it wasn't MAID sold to Thomson Corporation, it was Dialog, formerly know as MAID (renamed after the acquisition), http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/NewsBreaks/MAID-Moves-Closer-to-DIALOG-Purchase-18023.asp 5.226.137.179 (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been having trouble finding corroborating sources for the sale price. I found this which makes mention of the subjects personal gain from the sale and provides more details regarding the structure of the sale, https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/thomson-buys-dialog-databases-20000320. Here's an article form the independent, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/thomson-of-canada-set-to-buy-dialog-corp-283080.html although it's pre-sale. Another stating the sale was $275m, http://www.editorandpublisher.com/news/thomson-buys-dialog/ 5.226.137.179 (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
This article from the FT and already cited (webcache version to get around the paywall) says the Dialog sale was $330m, https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Jsi1btYs2uoJ:https://www.ft.com/content/8777fd1e-1915-11e2-af4e-00144feabdc0%3Fmhq5j%3De2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk. Given the inconsistencies across the sources, I propose it is removed from the article. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The sources used for the MAID/Dialog sale in the intro aren't well sources. Ref 4, https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/mar/14/portraits-dotcom-entrepreneurs-bubble-burst, makes a passing mention of the sale, absent of date and price. Ref 3, http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/entrepreneurs/famous-entrepreneurs/he-floated-his-first-company-for-120m-aged-31-now-powa-ceo-dan-wagner-says-the-uk-doesnt-get-tech/6526.article, contradicts the ft article above. FT vs 'London Loves Business' 5.226.137.179 (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Venda

The Venda section is misleading. Previous edits have tried to conflate the sale to Netsuite with Oracle's purchase of Netsuite 2 years later. We have two choices, follow the lead of User: SmartSE (see January edits & discussions) and exclude the sale altogether as there is no mention of the subject in the sales proceedings according to sourced articles (the subject was not CEO at the time of the sale), or include it, removing reference to Oracle as it's irrelevant for the reasons stated above. If the consensus is to keep the sale, in keeping with the rest of the article and references to sales, include the price as $50.5m quoted http://www.crn.com/news/cloud/300073512/netsuite-details-50-5m-deal-for-venda-in-q2-results.htm, https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/03/23/2157473/dont-call-it-another-dan-wagner-comeback/?mhq5j=e2 & the Venda page.

I included the resignation of the subject as director to show the subject was still a board member upto the point of sale and therefore was someway involved in the sale, in response to User:SmartSE. It also shows the subject was not involved in Venda/Nesuite at the time of acquisition by Oracle. Why do I need to make this distinction? In the Venda discussion in the previous section one anonymous editor said 'The subject was the chairman, founder and largest shareholder in Venda at the time of the sale to Oracle so very much relevant to his profile'. This is a lie. Also, as stated above, Venda was sold to Netsuite in 2014, Netsuite was sold to Oracle in 2016, therefore, when Venda was sold to Netsuite in was not a division of Oracle. User:92.233.78.117 was wrong to role back the changes and reinstate the link to Oracle. This change has been proposed for over a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.226.137.179 (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Asked for a third opinion as changes are being reverted without discussion. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Intro

I propose the removal of "the founder of British eCommerce", as it's subjective language and has been flagged by another editor as WP:PEACOCK.

There are so many amends on the intro that I have restored it back to as was the last time a senior editor reviewed, i.e. pre June 20th and suggest we start again trying to get consensus on here, and then amending. User:Ol king col (talk) 14:31, 03 July 2017 (UTC)
Ref 2, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8777fd1e-1915-11e2-af4e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz35JsfdYgS (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Jsi1btYs2uoJ:https://www.ft.com/content/8777fd1e-1915-11e2-af4e-00144feabdc0%3Fmhq5j%3De2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk), does not say the subject is the 'founder of British eCommerce'. Ref 1, http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3193955, is the only article to state this and it's a pr piece for the launch of Rezolve, therefore it should be removed from the intro. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

There are numerous articles that say the subject is the 'founder of British eCommerce' and Taiwan News - a highly respected daily newspaper in Taiwan was just one of many that referred to the subject in this way. see http://m.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2017/06/21/498936/UK-entrepreneur.htm and here 新的移動電子商務技術 進入台灣市場-政治-HiNet新聞 http://times.hinet.net/mobile/news/20258229 and here 大成報 Great News - 政治經濟 http://www.twgreatnews.com/home/news_pagein.php?iType=1008&n_id=140970 and here PChome 新聞 http://news.m.pchome.com.tw/politics/twpowernews/20170621/index-14980526951033147001.html and here 新的移動電子商務技術進入台灣市場 蕃新聞 http://n.yam.com/Article/20170621472035/%E6%96%B0%E7%9A%84%E7%A7%BB%E5%8B%95%E9%9B%BB%E5%AD%90%E5%95%86%E5%8B%99%E6%8A%80%E8%A1%93%E9%80%B2%E5%85%A5%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E5%B8%82%E5%A0%B4 and here 勁報 Power News - 政治經濟 http://www.twpowernews.com/home/news_pagein.php?iType=1008&n_id=124192. In addition, the subject is widely regarded as having been a pioneer in online information - requiring the development of eCommerce systems in 1984 - a decade before Amazon was founded. The FT article states as much here http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8777fd1e-1915-11e2-af4e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz35JsfdYgS and the Observer said the same thing here https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/mar/14/portraits-dotcom-entrepreneurs-bubble-burst. There are many other references to the subject's influence on eCommerce both in the UK and globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.78.117 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, all you've done is present articles which were published around the same time, recently about the same topic, the rezolve partnership. This looks highly suspicious and suggests it was lifted from a pr release. I'm not convinced. Perhaps you could provide articles which predate this announcement? The second point is misleading, MAID was not an eCommerce site, rather a data aggregator and provider. The observer article you reference says "packaging electronic information and data for scientists, librarians and other specialists and created his first company - Maid – in 1985." The other article cited, ft, doesn't specify MAID as an eCommerce business either. It does however state MAID stands for 'Marketing Analysis and Information Databse'. It does make mention of Venda, a single paragraph saying it was based on technology bought from boo.com. Neither article draws the conclusions you have stated above. Please do continue to provide the references which highlight the subjects influence on eCommerce both in the UK and globally and they shall be considered by all editors working on this article.5.226.137.179 (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Reading through the supplied sources above:

What you say about the references being published around the same time is not of concern. As far as they are all reliable references on wikipedia standards, they are all admissible. If a reference clearly states that he is the founder of British e-commerce, then those references' own credibility can be used to mention this as a fact. In anycase, we can at minimum attribute the fact to those references - like "He is regarded as the founder of the British e-commerce by [references/expert names here]". That would be more neutral - **if** you are able to negate the point with any other references. If you arnt able to negate them, then this should stay in as a fact rather than attributed statement. These statements are completely according to wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. You can not violate these policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.102.25.125 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it reliable if it's a press release reprinted in a publication? You haven't address why the 5 of the 6 articles cited are word for word the same? The sixth also being similar in content and structure. If I were to put out a press release regarding a new commercial deal and were to also state the subject was god, and that was printed by the publication, that would be classified as reliable and admissible? I question the reliability of the sources given the replication of content. I note the claim has been mocked on twitter, https://twitter.com/jonathanwall/status/877848298798931968, https://twitter.com/mcmillanstu/status/877858604505812996, https://twitter.com/GlynnDavis/status/877952591216336896, https://twitter.com/markscott82/status/877822155731255296 (this one is from a journalist for the New York Times). Not that I'm suggesting tweets are reliable sources. Where's the evidence to support this claim? The articles fail to specify why the the subject is known as this. Are you claiming Venda makes the subject 'the founder of British eCommerce'?I'm afraid as it stands I can't agree with your point and suggest a third independent opinion be sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.226.137.179 (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

92.233.78.117 (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC) You say that the references are copies of each other from different publications, that happens a lot in news world. You might have noticed that main mainstream news sites publish same stories - this happens often when it is supplied by agencies like Agence France-Presse. Maybe you can call them one source but you can not call them no source and the fact that all those different news sites have republished the material, add to its credibility. Ironically, what you have to present in counter argument is twitter / social media which is not acceptable by wikipedia as reliable source. I would suggest that you keep your speculation, social media following and WP:OR based personal commentary out of this debate so that we can discuss in line with wiki policies. WP:OR will be ignored and reverted on wikipedia articles.

"Not that I'm suggesting tweets are reliable sources." - you chose to overlook this? I am familiar with news agencies but when their material is used they are credited as the origin and/or author of the piece. I see no such credit. I have requested an independent editor takes a look at this given my point about the validity of the source material.5.226.137.179 (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Techtrek (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC) I am initiating this discussion to mutually work it out with the editors disputing the intro and other details of this topic on wikipedia. I suggest that we stop discussing editors and throwing around accusations and instead focus on content, at the same time, we should completely stop the edit war and editing /reverting further until consensus is gained here for making any edits according to wikipedia rules.

Ol King Col, if you want to change the intro, explain why and what you need to add.

If you think that you are unable to gain consensus on the matter, I will invite neutral editors using a WP:RFC to get a clear consensus but - first try to explain based on wikipedia policies why you want to remove this. This goes for all edits to be made and not intro. Let us stop edit war and discuss civilly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techtrek (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Techtrek, you haven't solicited my opinion which I have expressed at great length above. To reiterate, under WP:QUESTIONABLE & WP:INDEPENDENT, I question the validity of the claim 'the founder of British eCommerce'. 5 of the 6 cited references are the same. A press release perhaps? From WP:INDEPENDENT 'Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release.' No evidence has been cited in the articles to back up the claim. No other articles have made the statement about the subject. WP:SOURCES states 'When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources'. To further illustrate the questionable content of the articles, 'Wagner's technology was far ahead of market development'. Sources that are questionable should not be used on an WP:BLP. Secondly, the sale of MAID, which was actually Dialog at the time, to Thomson, citing a sale price of $500m has been contradicted by other articles, under WP:DISPUTED 'There are reliable sources supporting two or more different claims.' Please refer to the Dialog section above. I would welcome a neutral editors opinion on these points. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why Techtrek is asking for my views on this as I'm not involved in this discussion. However, for what it's worth I think both sides of this have valid claims. User talk:92.233.78.117 has provided several sources, and I assume that Techtrek is supporting this view. But I also agree with User talk:5.226.137.179 that most of those sources seem to be regurgitating from the same press release. Consequently, I think that the claim should be included in the body of the article, perhaps under the heading regarding Rezolve, as this all refers to the launch of Rezolve. I do not believe that it deserves it's prominence in the first line of the intro, which should be for what he is best known for, and this has been discussed in ALOT of length on this talk page, and I think User:Fences and windows summed it up best 12 months ago when he said "here is what Wagner is "best known" for in recent reliable sources, seeing as that is also disputed: "Mr Wagner is best-known for being the founder and former chief executive of Dialog, which was dubbed “dial-a-dog” by City wags after its share price crashed 95 per cent on Nasdaq, New York’s technology-heavy market." (Independent, Feb 16); "Wagner, whose previous best-known business, Dialog, lost 95% of its value during the dotcom boom and bust, told BBC Radio 4’s In Business on Sunday that Powa’s fall into administration had come as a complete shock." (Guardian, April 16)." I do not see that a couple of news articles have changed that. Ol king col (talk) 12:33, 06 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! 5.226.137.179 (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Previously, User:Huon stated: ″That Wagner has said he's going to sue and that he was conspired against might be worth a note in the body of the article; it's not important enough to make up half the lead. See WP:UNDUE. Besides, Wikipedia is not a platform for Mr Wagner's views. When he has sued things certainly are worth mentioning (though I expect it's rather difficult to sue people for not throwing good money after bad); right now this is all hot air and evidence-less allegations.″

Although I added this to the article, on reflection and taking into account Use:Huon previous feedback, there has been no progress on the matter, at least as reported by the press. Have the court proceedings started? It hasn't been reported, thererfore it should be removed.

The section relating the the claim against the subject by Ben White should remain as this article, https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/06/07/2165045/ex-powa-director-battles-dan-wagner-over-unpaid-loan/?mhq5j=e2, claims the case has been issued at the court.

5.226.137.179 (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The subject has brought proceedings in the high court of justice in London on Monday May 12 to appoint KPMG to commence proceedings against Wellington, Ben White and others. Simultaneously, two hedge funds, Aquila and Rovio, both investors in Powa, petitioned the Manchester court to appoint Duff and Phelps to commence proceedings against Wellington and Ben White. Two separate petitions to bring actions against Wellington and Ben White. A subsequent hearing in the Manchester court on May 25th was adjourned and a new date in Manchester has been set for August 3 2017 to discuss the merits of either KPMG or Duff and Phelps. All in court records and all pointing to a genuine dispute about the demise of Powa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.78.117 (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide references please? I'm haven't been able to find anything beyond that already supplied. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, that's an impressive level of detail given the lack of press coverage since November. Do you you have an undeclared link to the subject? 5.226.137.179 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

92.233.78.117 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC) I have no relation to the subject and knowing details that are not in the news for every one to read only implies that I have researched more than a quick google search. I'm glad that you are impressed by my knowledge about the topic but repeatedly accusing another editor of something they've denied is taken as a personal attack and is a blockable offense on wikipedia. I could similarly say that you are related to some one opposing the subject for the amends you are making and that would hold the same credibility as what you say - so let's avoid that all together and discuss the issue itself. The court listings are publicly available and I am an interested party following the events of the potential litigation.

Then I ask again, please can you provide references. Without them the information cannot go into the article. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


Rfc about Edits for discussion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Questions withdrawn to allow for full article review 94.193.159.223 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

There are seven questions to consider here, each has its own subsection below:

Please refer to the above sections for positions taken by editors participating on this page. 94.193.159.223 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Should the price of the Dialog sale be removed given conflicting reports?
Survey
  • Partly support, perhaps we could include the varying amounts, e.g. the price paid for the sale have been quoted from X to Y in different sources, and then list the sources? Ol king col (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No, the price was $500m. it was a publicly traded company sold to another publicly traded company. The price paid was $500m. After debt and transaction costs $275m was left in cash for shareholders. there is no conflicting reports on this. 185.69.145.158 (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
But there are conflicting reports as highlighted in the discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dan_Wagner#Dialog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.159.223 (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The values of companies and movements of monies with biography articles are hard advertising. It has nothing to do with the individual, and all to do with the company, and as such is promotional and violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. scope_creep (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Should the subject's resignation from board of directors of Venda, as part of sale to Netsuite, be included?
Survey
Comment I've asked Ol king col to undertake disclosure per WP:PAID. It is a SPA account for the express purpose to advertise the subject. scope_creep (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment Hi scope_creep, More than a little surprised about this as I have repeatedly been accused on this very talk page of the exact opposite, and of trying to paint the subject in a negative light, I stopped editing the page itself because whenever I did Techtrek (or one of his sockpuppets) would just undo whatever I did (please see my and articles edit history) as I tried to make the article into a non-puff piece. Appreciate this talk page is very, very long, but there is alot of history of myself and other users trying to stop this being an advertisement for the user, and we have all repeatedly asked for senior editor inputs, so I would support any changes you, with much more experience, think are appropriate. Ol king col (talk) 13:31, 01 August 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Should the statement 'Netsuite a division of Oracle' be included?
Survey
  • Oppose - As sale to Oracle occured 2 years after the purchase by Netsuite, and Mr Wagners involvement in the business it has no relevance to this biography. Ol king col (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support / include. Yes, NetSuite is a division of Oracle. Oracle is a well known public company. There is no justification for hiding NetSuite's parent when the parent is the public company that made the acquisition. If the company is mentioned, it is relevant to mention the parent for the purpose of context. 185.69.145.158 (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Should the price of the Venda sale to Netsuite be included?
Survey
  • Oppose No, it was not disclosed formally and the rumour of $50.5m is not accurate and has never been confirmed by either party. Wikipedia works by WP:V not WP:TRUTH. It also concerns me that the IP wants to remove the parent which is obvious but include the price which is vague - this seems to go against all contexts. The article is actually about Dan Wagner. 185.69.145.158 (talk) 11:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No. All sales prices, share prices, financials, office location, director remunerations, mergers, bubacks etc are other advertising mechanisms, are all coming out as they violate WP:NOTADVERTISING and as such are against WP terms. Such advertising puts Wikipedia licence as a NGO at risk. scope_creep (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Should the statement 'who has been called 'the founder of British eCommerce' be removed from the intro?
Survey
  • Support the removal, it's not a claim that stands up to much scrutiny, and not subjects primary claim to fame which has been detailed at length elsewhere, does not warrnt it's inclusion so high. Ol king col (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is referenced in multiple articles recently and is further verified by the facts that the subject started the first online information platform in 1984 - which needed eCommerce technologies to take payment for information - when, at the time, there was no such thing as technologies available for taking payments from digital or online platforms. The subject is known for having created those technologies 11 years before the term eCommerce was coined. The subject designed many of the payment systems that are used today in eCommerce. He also founded the first and one of the only remaining UK eCommerce platform providers in 1998 with Venda (which was sold to Oracle subsidiary NetSuite in 2014) and which today powers many of the UK high street retailers (over 100 of them including Tesco, Laura Ashley, Russell And Bromley, Heals, Paperchase, Royal Mail, British Museum, Tate Gallery, TK Max, Cotton Traders, Arsenal, Fat Face etc). Since it is to be included else where in the article, intro is also a summary of the rest per WP:MOS 185.69.145.158 (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
User 185.69.145.158 has been requested to undergo disclosure per WP:PAID. scope_creep (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
Should the statement 'who has been called 'the founder of British eCommerce' be included elsewhere in the article?
Survey
  • Not sure if supporting inclusion or opposing inclusion. Either way, I believe that the claim has certainly been made in the press, even if they do read as press release reporting, and so should be included in the section on Rezolve something to the effect of - reports at the time of the launch of Rezolve referred to Mr Wagner as the founder of British eCommerce. Or words to that effect. Ol king col (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Given the questions around the source material and the higher standards required for WP:BLP shouldn't this be removed altogether? 94.193.159.223 (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The subject is well known for being a pioneer in ecommerce and online services. it is the one thing that defines him publicly. as a result it needs to remain in the intro as not only is it appropriate but also referenced publicly in multiple different articles in multiple countries around the world.

--185.69.145.158 (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


Threaded discussion
Survey
Threaded discussion


TD

(Summoned by bot)IP, is your double !vote just an example or the reasons for and against? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood the structure of the request and meant for them to be options. Given the binary nature of the questions the options/double votes don't seem necessary so I've removed them. 94.193.159.223 (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It's a biography article, and all this stuff about shares prices, money movements, financials, company creation ownership except at a basic level, funding levels, company valuations and financials, assert WP:NOTADVERTISING as plain advertising. It is a puff piece article. scope_creep (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I just waiting for this Rfc to finish, then I'm going to do a full copy-edit on it. scope_creep (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intro

Regarding

Further to the comprehensive re-write User:Scope creep has undertaken can I suggest that the intro is amended. It has previously been discussed, at length, on here that the inclusion of the phrase "has been called 'the founder of British eCommerce'" is pure puffery and comes from PR press release as outlined above, so should be removed. It was also discussed Talk:Dan_Wagner#Should_the_statement_.27who_has_been_called_.27the_founder_of_British_eCommerce.27_be_removed_from_the_intro.3F where the votes overwhelmingly agreed to remove.

I was in the middle of writing something to this effect. Here's my contribution:
@scope_creep - I'd like to thank scope_creep for their comprehensive clean up of the article. This has address many of the issues mentioned in the talk page. However, I would like to raise an issue with the current intro which still makes reference to the subject as the 'the founder of British eCommerce'. As part of the rfc, you supported its removal as a 'purely subjective statement which can't be proved'. There was a great deal of discussion here Talk:Dan_Wagner#Intro, and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=789452294#Talk:Dan_Wagner.23Intro. In summary, the credibility of the cited article is called into question. It reads like a paid for piece/pr piece. It's full of subjective claims like 'Dan Wagner can be called the founder of the British e-commerce.' and 'Wagner's technology was far ahead of market development'. Its credibility is further undermine by the brief sentence 'Wagner's technology was far ahead of market development, however the company was closed.', completely glossing over the administration of Powa. I think WP:INDEPENDENT & WP:QUESTIONABLE are applicable to this article. 82.163.113.33 (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, the photo has been discussed on here previously, as per above it was posted by a user who has now been banned for sock-puppetry as the account was being used to puff up the subject and so should now be removed, as well as that copyright ownership has not been proven. Ol king col (talk) 12:02, 07 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the picture you guys are talking about, it says that "An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account." It appears that the copy right permissions are being dealt with by wikipedia's OTRS team. If some one of the editors are emailing wikipedia team to donate the image using eligible copyrights, then it is wikipedia's benefit to let the OTRS team handle it. That said, I will also like to be a part of these editing efforts to make this article more neutral. It seems to be an interesting read.

95.210.221.6 (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

...founder phrase

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

I did comprehensive search of the phrase, and could find no mention of it, outside that one paper, and is not sufficient to establish notability. It is completely subjective and will not be included unless notability is established. scope_creep (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I never realised I had left it in. I was planning to remove it. scope_creep (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


I have been reading business news, ecommerce and industry publications for decades and following technology professionals and entrepreneurs such as Dan Wagner since he launched his business in france in 1986 and I think he has been widely known here as an innovator in ecommerce. I have also seen numerous sources that call him the 'founder of the british ecommerce'. The fact that Dan Wagner created the first digital commerce platform to sell information in 1984 is in itself proof of this fact. The worldwide web wasn't even proposed until 1989 and so this was five years before the internet as we know it came in to being, as a result many of these reference sources would be offline and this would be a bias towards online sources. As far as I know, wikipedia policies dictate neutrality and sticking to online only material would totally be against the website's own policies. I recommend that offline news and references be considered for this purpose. Many french articles appeared in the eighties about him being a pioneer in e-commerce but these were before digital archives become widely used. For example, according to The Observer, "... one of the first people to realise the benefits of packaging electronic information and data for scientists, librarians and other specialists." There are also the numerous Chinese articles available for this fact. In 1997, for example, Dan Wagner did a major deal in Japan with Fujitsu where U.K. Prime minister Tony Blair sent his Trade and industry Secretary to participate in the announcements and at the time many Japanese newspapers called Dan Wagner the Pioneer of ecommerce and the 'UKs Bill Gates'. Therefore, I think this is not any kind of puffery in the article and only a fact. I am all for being neutral in wikipedia articles but unbecoming of wikipedia by trimming down facts is not good.

95.210.221.6 (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Reading the article again, the intro line says "he has also been called 'the founder of British eCommerce'". This is not even being stated as a fact of facts. It is only being mentioned, as per references, that credible sources credit him with that. I think this is a fair statement to make as accorded by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Context_matters

95.210.221.6 (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless and until the details of these "numerous sources" you have seen that use this phrase can be provided here/verified as references, the phrase is subjective and I would agree should not be included, which appears to be the current consensus. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Melcous, why are you not satisfied with the five Chinese sources from China and Taiwan that appeared only recently and stated that Dan Wagner is the founder of British e-commerce? Surely that is sufficient according to wiki policies. You only need one reputable source and Taiwan news is one such credible source (http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3193955) as are at least two of the others that said the same thing.

95.210.221.6 (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

For starters, the English in that Taiwan article is very odd. "The founder of the British e-commerce" (emphasis added) - the second definite article makes it sound like a suspiciously truncated quote ... perhaps from something like this China post article where he is called "the founder of the U.K. ecommerce and mobile payments company Powa ..."? That makes more sense but is a very different kind of claim. Furthermore, statements like "has been called" and "can be called" beg the question, by whom? Who is calling him that? And the work done by other editors (some noted above) seems to suggest that the answer is press releases, i.e. himself. Wikipedia works by consensus, and at this stage it seems like you are the only editor who thinks this is a verifiable claim rather than puffery, and particularly given the history of self-promotion on this article, there does not seem to me to be justification for you continually re-adding these words as yet. Pinging scope_creep who seems to have done much more work on this. Melcous (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I dont think I am the only editor on any side. After reading talk page history of this article, it is clear to me that two parties (in favour and against), including Ol King Col and Techtrek, have been fighting it out on this biography to amend different kind of edits. I dont care what each of them want to include or exclude but thanks for pointing out that this topic is a bit of controversial which lead me to read the previous history in more detail. I agree with working using consensus and I suggest that the format of wikipedia debate is followed.

95.210.221.6 (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.210.221.6 (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarification 95.210.221.6, are you stating to have never have been involved in this article, be another IP or username, previous to your contributions today? 82.163.113.33 (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I have not edited this article before. Have you?

85.255.233.221 (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I have. I haven't claimed otherwise. I note that your IP address is a Vodafone IP. There have been many edits from Vodafone IP's. In fact, the last Vodafone IP to make an edit on this page was given a temporary block for block evasion, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A85.255.232.175. What a coincidence. 82.163.113.33 (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how many people use vodafone! If all of them editing in the topic would be treated like this if they differ with your opinion, that is bad faith. It is an offense to assume bad faith against editors on wikipedia and I suggest you stick to discussing the topic and not me or other IPs as you are spoiling the environment of discussion on this talk page. I am not even a vodafone customer, my mobile provider is SFR in France. I don't think Vodafone even operate here (but I cannot confess to knowing how the mobile operators manage IP ranges). In any event, it is visible that IPs on each side of the edit wars were blocked.

95.210.221.6 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That was in response to 85.255.233.221, who responded to a question posed to 95.210.221.6, the IP you're posting from. Do 85.255.233.221 & 95.210.221.6 often answer questions for each other? WP:QUACK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.113.33 (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-commerce, Thompson Holidays UK launched an e-commerce offering three years prior to MAID in 1981. 82.163.113.33 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Non consensus based update to article

Latest comment: 7 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

I have reverted the article, and told the SPA account holder that reverted the statement: that he is a father of ecommerce, which is false of course, to undergo WP:PAID disclosure, which of course will not happen. Just to note, I have been a software engineer in the UK and Europe for more than 25 years. Spent my time reading Omni years ago, when I was a kid and read a whole bunch of trade computing magazines and newspapers in the interim, including the likes of Computing and EWeek and I have never heard of Dan Wagner. I known about Alan Turning, Bertrand Russel, Whitehead, Knuth from the past and a whole bunch of folk from the present, like Lee, Ellison, Jobs and Gates, city folk and industry insiders but not Dan Wagner. scope_creep (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

scope_creep (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I am not a single purpose account. I am an IP user which are just as legit as any one with a registered user on wikipedia. IP users make up the major contributors of wikipedia and as IPs change their contributions get lost into previous IPs, so just because I edited this article does not mean that your personal experiences should take precedence over mine. What you are saying is all your original research while I gave a reference. I am also searching for more. I am infact giving away my location with my IP while you are the one anonymous. So let's not discredit each other and work based on references.

85.255.233.221 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear IP 85.255.233.221, It wasn't you that I was referring to. It was the SPA account that came in, and immediately reverted the article twice, and had to be warned by an admin. I wasn't you. I understand the reasons for IP users, and welcome their work, and participation. scope_creep (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@scope_creep, there's seems to be some confusion with the IP 85.255.233.221 & 95.210.221. From the previous section Talk:Dan_Wagner#...founder_phrase, they seemed to be interchanging in the conversation thread. WP:QUACK?

Just because my IP automatically switched (IPs do that!) doesn't mean that I am trying to look like more than one person. The network automatically changes IP some times. IP 85 and 95 above are both me. Please assume good faith and stay on topic!

95.210.221.6 (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Please forgive my incessant questions. This page has a history of WP:SOCKING, most recently Techtreck was banned for such. Techtrek had quite a history with this article and was a major contributor. Your POV is very similar to Techtrek and other previously banned/warned editors/IP's. You yourself have been warned for non consensus based updates to the article. It makes me wonder if WP:QUACK is applicable. Also, in the previous section you stated 'I am not even a vodafone customer, my mobile provider is SFR in France.' - in that case, why did your IP change to a vodafone IP? Again, please forgive all the questions, I want to assume good faith editing/suggestions by yourself so we can all work together to make this article as accurate as possible and worthy of Wikipedia. This is why I defer to senior editors when it comes to editing of the article. I look forward to your continued contributions. 82.163.113.33 (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea who the ISP assigns the IP addresses and whose IPs they use which is why I have simply mentioned and owned my IPs. None of the other IPs or users belong to me and I shall not be accused of being them any more than you shall be accused of being one of them. I will ignore all your further comments regarding this matter so that this debate on the topic is not deviated so please dont waste your time asking me more incessant questions.

I will be adding more references here in time.

95.210.221.6 (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Back to topic, I said I would be bringing in more references as I am not in favour of trimming valid facts from wikipedia though I support writing the articles in neutral way and not advertising any specific party. I gave some references before and there are more references I found from the library and I am sending scanned copies of the same for your review. That settles my support of including the claim that he was in fact the founder (or pioneer) of British e-commerce. The article from Marketing in 1988 states 'MAID has built a unique technology platform that allows articles to be purchased using computers. Mr Wagner has pioneered the technology to take payment in this way....' (obviously in 1988 ecommerce wasn't even a term that had been invented but the quote is clear) and the second article is from the UK national newspaper the Guardian dated May 1995 which says '...(he) sees where the information highway is headed before anyone else has dreamed up the phrase' and '...ten years later, widely regarded as having invented electronic commerce, he launches his pioneering company.....'. I have done enough for my burden of proof as far as WP:V goes by giving reliable sources. Now if any one wants to read more on the topic, it is up to them to go to a library - but from my end, for some verification of the facts, I am giving the historical references for your reading as a courtesy and not just their citation details. You can see the scanned copies on the following links: Marketing Mag - May 1988 https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8CxFjCGp3NEWlE2eGphSEtaajA and The Guardian Newspaper - May 1995 https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8CxFjCGp3NEWlU0ZVlfTGMwd0U

95.210.221.6 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

As I posted in the previous section, Thompson Holidays UK launched a b2b e-commerce site 3 years prior to MAID, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-commerce. The same link states Gateshead SIS & Tesco provided a b2c e-commerce offering in 1984, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24091393, Jane Snowball being credited as the first b2c purchase. The articles presented don't justify reinstating the 'founder of British e-commerce' statement. As this about reaching a consensus I'd like to hear the opinions of scope_creep, Smartse, Melcous & Ol king col opinion.
FYI, this is my newly registered account. I have previously posted from IP 82.163.113.33 & 94.193.159.223. For the benefit of other editors, I found a convenient cache of newspaper clippings relating to the subject here, https://web.archive.org/web/20160402055022/http://brightstation.com/press.ht⁠ml, in case people are hard pressed for time and can't visit the library. Also, editors should be aware, the subject is aware of this wikipedia article and has linked to it from https://www.brightstation.com/dan-wagner and https://www.dan-wagner.com/dan-wagner giving warning that 'Wikipedia (usually wrong!)'. Perhaps he is referring to an old version of the article? Yak shaving (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You are synthesizing your own opinion from the ecommerce wikipedia article and other references. None of them state or argue that Dan Wagner was not the founder of British ecommerce. They might mention other similar services but saying that Dan (Marketing Mag - May 1988 https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8CxFjCGp3NEWlE2eGphSEtaajA and The Guardian Newspaper - May 1995 https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8CxFjCGp3NEWlU0ZVlfTGMwd0U) called (or credited) Dan Wagner the founder of British ecommerce will be an indisputable statement. Because I did provide references that did call him that. Now, this can be said in a more neutral way as I stated. Such technologies evolve and may be pioneered in multiple ways. That does not negate my argument in any way.

95.210.221.6 (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Nothing you provided states 'founder of British ecommerce'. I've presented you and other editors with information showing that the subject was not the first to do 'ecommerce' in Britain. Also according to this https://www.brightstation.com/maid, the product wasn't launched until 1985, the business was formed in 1984. Given all of this the current intro 'He created MAID, one of the first internet online information platforms in 1984' is fair although the date is debatable. Yak shaving (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I've revert another WP:NONCON change by IP 95.210.221.6. Please discuss suggested changes on this page for all editors to review and agree.

I've been asked to comment again - for now I'll just say that I do not think it has been demonstrated that "the founder of British ecommerce" is a verifiable and valid claim and do not support it being re-inserted in the article. Melcous (talk)

Yak, your comments are original research. Wikipedia rules require us to say what reliable resources state. We are not allowed to do our own research on who is infact the founder or who started such a business first. That would be WP:TRUTH of your understanding and should not be a part of the discussion here. If a reliable resource mentions or implies or calls Dan Wagner the founder, then we should write it as such. If editors have problem it being neutral, it can be modified to attribution like "[source here] called [or credited] Dan Wagner as the founder of British E-Commerce." Your calculations and dates have no value here just like mine. Neither can you combine and research different sources. We will article what a references says properly.

Melcous, If you disagree, I can collect all resources and start an RFC to get a better consensus. I can do that in the next days unless you people are willing to discuss the attributed suggestion I gave.

95.210.221.6 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, setting aside the contributions you claim to be WP:OR, the fact remains that the articles you've presented have not stated that the subject is 'the founder of the British e-commerce' (the actual quote). Implication is not adequate for WP:BLP. WP:BLPREMOVE clearly states Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that...is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research). Your supposition is, and to quote WP:OR, a 'synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources'. By all means, provide more evidence so I and other editors can reconsider the proposal. Also, you may wish to consider WP:BLPSELF and make a post to WP:BLPN and request that other 'uninvolved editors evaluate the article to make sure it is fairly written and properly sourced.' Yak shaving (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
About a page up I was asked for my opinion, for what it's worth here it is. User:95.210.221.6 has presented a couple of solid sources that do associate one of the subjects previous companies with e-commerce in its earliest days (side note / question - User:95.210.221.6 has stated they're in France, so I am curious which library in France had copies of English newspapers from over 20 years ago, and English Marketing magazines from 30 years ago? Just curious for my future reference). However User:Yak shaving and wikipedias own pages E-commerce clearly show that e-commerce was happening before the subjects business began. As such and in accordance with what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#.22If_it.27s_written_in_a_book.2C_it_must_be_true.21.22 I believe that the following is extremely relevant to this claim In some cases, publication in a reliable source is not sufficient to establish that a view is significant. Reliable sources may be outdated or disputed by other sources. with the two provided sources being 20 and 30 years old they are hardly the most up to date, and therefore it has not been demonstrated that the claim that the subject is "the founder of British ecommerce" is verifiable and / or a valid claim and so I do not support it being re-inserted in the article. Ol king col (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Moderator Comment

I tried to conduct moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It is my conclusion that the statement that Dan Wagner is the "founder of British e-Commerce" or a "founder of British e-Commerce" cannot be substantiated. I will be recommending semi-protection of the article for an extended period of time because of the promotional editing from unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice

My request to semi-protect the article was declined because there has not been enough disruptive editing to justify semi-protection. There is, in my opinion, a consensus against adding a "founder" claim. As a result, editors should boldly remove any such claim. If there is edit-warring to insert it, the edit-warring may be reported at the edit-warring noticeboard, or a new Request for Page Protection for semi-protection can be made. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ben White

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are now more references to the legal battle against Ben White which has been settled in his favour. Should it now be included? Apologies for any breaches in etiquette, I am new to this.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-5213213/Tech-entrepreneur-loses-battle-avoid-paying-1-5m.html https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/powa-founder-dan-wagner-loses-court-battle-over-2m-demand-j8j3tfs9l — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.240.177.234 (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yip, they look solid references. Thanks for adding the content. I will revert it back to what it was. Please make sure you use the proper sources defintion to create the references. This can be done by using the Cite button at the top of the editor. Then select Templates and then News for the times article, and Web, for the www.thisismoney.co.uk reference. A dialog will open and fill in the field, and hit insert, and it will create it for you. Thanks for being patient. scope_creep (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC for Dan Wagner Updates

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Closed as redundant. This RFC substantially or entirely duplicates the existing and open #Request_Edits_April_2022.

I am severely concerned that this article has had to be page-protected no less than 7 times due to disruptive editing, that there is a clear history of problematic COI and sockpuppetry, that this has previously been escalated to a noticeboard at least once, that a COI editor appears to be using a costly(volunteer time/labor cost) RFC-process to avoid the edit request process, and that overall this article appears to be creating an undue burden upon volunteer labor. I will offer some advice, which may be accepted or ignored as anyone sees fit.

The COI edit request queue is badly backlogged. It is understandable that anyone would become impatient with a 5 month backlog. For what it's worth, this is close to the oldest unresolved request in the queue and as such it is at the "front" of the queue to be resolved soon. I advise any COI editor to remind their employer (or the ultimate client) that community goodwill is critically important. Conflict, agressive tactics, or pressure, can backfire.

While it is generally appropriate for an encyclopedia biography to cover the subject's profession and noteworthy employment history, it is however typically not appropriate for a biography to detail the company's specific products, industry goals, and assorted business decisions, unless the coverage is far from routine and is biograpghically significant.

I note scope_creep said There was consensus to remove this information in 2017. I found it difficult to specificaly confirm that applies here on casual review. It might be helpful to more precisely link and justify any such evidence in the edit request above. Alsee (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are three distinct questions for consideration here, each of which will be dealt with separately below:

Discussion

Please note my disclosed COI above, I’m sorry to have put up a multi-pronged RfC about basic content that obviously belongs in this article, but a standard Request Edit was blocked by User:Scope creep, who has been heavily monitoring this article for many years. Scope said that “exactly the content that was taken out in 2017 by consensus with some uptodate content” this 2017 RfC. This is simply false. There is no overlap. Scope further said “You as Dan Wagner obviously want to turn back the clock and put the puff back in, as it was before. That is not going to happen.” Scope also characterized my proposals as WP:PROMOTIONAL.

First, I am not Dan Wagner; as I noted in the Request Edit I submitted, I am a paid consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by Dan Wagner. I have full discretion to act independently, though. I have no connection to any editors who have edited this article or participated on Talk in the past. I have simply looked for obvious weaknesses in the article and found a few glaring omissions that should not be controversial, yet have been blocked.W12SW77 (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Should Dan Wagner’s role as CEO of “Attraqt” be included in the article?

Yes. First, there is nothing in the 2017 RfC about Attraqt, so this is a novel question. Dan Wagner founded this firm, worked there for more than 13 years and brought it public. Supporting sources include stories in The Times of London.[1] and The Financial Times.[2] It’s difficult to see how this prominent career event should not be included. I have created a short version in my Sandbox, which can be found here: User:W12SW77/sandbox#Attraqt W12SW77 (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Should Dan Wagner’s role as CEO of “Rezolve” be included in the article?

Yes. First, there is nothing in the 2017 RfC about Rezolve, so this is a novel question. Wagner’s role as the founder and CEO of Rezolve, a publicly traded company, has been covered extensively in leading mainstream press, including The Times of London[3] and the Wall Street Journal.[4] It’s difficult to see how this prominent career event should not be included. I have created a short version in my Sandbox, which can be found here: User:W12SW77/sandbox#Rezolve. W12SW77 (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Should there be more about what Wagner did at Powa Technologies?

Yes. First, there is nothing in the 2017 RfC about Wagner’s role creating and running Powa, so this is a novel question. Wagner is well known for founding and being the CEO of Powa Technologies. It eventually went into Administration (law)#United Kingdom (akin to bankruptcy). At present, the section Dan Wagner#Powa Technologies has one sentence about what the company did, compared to eleven sentences about its collapse.

Source include the Financial Times,[5][6] The Independent,[7] and the Wall Street Journal.[8] This is justified by simple WP: PROPORTION. I have posted a potential revision that includes three sentences about what Wagner did at the company before it went into administration.User:W12SW77/sandbox#Powa.W12SW77 (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC) W12SW77 (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Duke, Simon (13 July 2014). "Dotcom veteran returns with shopping software listing". London Times. Retrieved 29 September 2022.
  2. ^ Shubber, Kadhim (16 June 2016). "After all that Powa, another departure for Dan Wagner". Financial Times. Retrieved 23 March 2022.
  3. ^ Evans, Peter (23 June 2019). "Dan Wagner snatches another shot at glory". The Sunday Times. Retrieved 25 March 2022.
  4. ^ Ramkumar, Amrith (17 December 2021). "Mobile Commerce Platform Rezolve Reaches $2 Billion SPAC Deal to Go Public; Rezolve says its platform lets consumers make physical ads and products instantly shoppable by pointing their phones". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 22 March 2022.
  5. ^ Davies, Sally; Bounds, Andy (4 March 2014). "Tech entrepreneur aims to revolutionise shopping". Financial Times. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
  6. ^ Shubber, Kadhim (26 Aug 2016). "Entrepreneur uses assets of failed Powa as basis of retail tech venture". Financial Times. Retrieved 22 March 2022.
  7. ^ Nimmo, Jamie (18 February 2016). "Powa: Is Dan Wagner's latest unicorn hobbled?". The Independent. Retrieved 25 March 2022.
  8. ^ Chapman, Lizette (7 Nov 2014). "Powa Raises $80 Million to Launch Its Mobile, E-Commerce Payments in U.S." Dow Jones Institutional News. Retrieved 25 March 2022.

RFC Updates Discussion

As a WhiteHatWiki paid editor, your attempt to bypass the edit request mechanism seems be an attempt to WP:GAME the system. There was consensus to remove this information in 2017 as it was found to be completely promotional, after an RFC, edit warring taking place and two dispute resolutions, yet we are back here as though none of that took place. It is almost entirely the same content as before, with a better focus certainly but the references are still PR that will WP:PUFF the article up, that for what is a WP:BLP. So you can get your bonus at our expense. No thanks. scope_creepTalk 19:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Wagner/Archive_2&oldid=1227948809"