This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should correct the capitalization of the company name? — Kinki ( talk) 07:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Could some 3rd party please check the mediasentry section for neutrality? I find it quite biased and accusative. Should the RIAA -lawsuit rant be moved to RIAA article, or should a subsection 'criticism' be created? Kimvais ( talk) 09:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I just did two things. First, I removed the quotes around "on behalf of." Second, I removed the paragraph that called them goons and thugs and referred to a Dutch decision. The footnote cited http://p2pnet.net/story/12224, which actually was just a citation to http://p2pnet.net/story/6977, which, in reference to what was unlawful, said simply "Dutch ISPs didn’t have to provide customer information to the CRIA’s Netherlands counterparts." We need more information here.
So, if anyone wants to clean that stuff up, the actual decision they're referring to is here: http://www.daledietrich.com/imedia/decisions/Foundation_v_UPC_Nederland_(District_Court_of_Utrecht_July_12_2005).pdf. From what I can tell, the "unlawful" bit was not part of the judge's decision, but a counterclaim by the sued ISPs.
Reve ( talk) 02:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I was confused by this too. Media Sentry is apparently no longer part of Safenet, so the material has been moved to the MediaSentry article. It doesn't seem appropriate to have the same information twice.
However, removing it completely does seem like a whitewash, since Media Sentry was part of Safenet at the time most of the controversial practices were going on. I think the thing to do is to mention them here, with a pointer to the Media Sentry article. I'll see what I can do. Please help out. Rees11 ( talk) 21:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. Since MOS:TM explicitly allows camel case, the move is within policy. -- BDD ( talk) 23:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Safenet → SafeNet – The title of the article should match the way the company spells its name. Timtempleton ( talk) 20:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should correct the capitalization of the company name? — Kinki ( talk) 07:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Could some 3rd party please check the mediasentry section for neutrality? I find it quite biased and accusative. Should the RIAA -lawsuit rant be moved to RIAA article, or should a subsection 'criticism' be created? Kimvais ( talk) 09:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I just did two things. First, I removed the quotes around "on behalf of." Second, I removed the paragraph that called them goons and thugs and referred to a Dutch decision. The footnote cited http://p2pnet.net/story/12224, which actually was just a citation to http://p2pnet.net/story/6977, which, in reference to what was unlawful, said simply "Dutch ISPs didn’t have to provide customer information to the CRIA’s Netherlands counterparts." We need more information here.
So, if anyone wants to clean that stuff up, the actual decision they're referring to is here: http://www.daledietrich.com/imedia/decisions/Foundation_v_UPC_Nederland_(District_Court_of_Utrecht_July_12_2005).pdf. From what I can tell, the "unlawful" bit was not part of the judge's decision, but a counterclaim by the sued ISPs.
Reve ( talk) 02:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I was confused by this too. Media Sentry is apparently no longer part of Safenet, so the material has been moved to the MediaSentry article. It doesn't seem appropriate to have the same information twice.
However, removing it completely does seem like a whitewash, since Media Sentry was part of Safenet at the time most of the controversial practices were going on. I think the thing to do is to mention them here, with a pointer to the Media Sentry article. I'll see what I can do. Please help out. Rees11 ( talk) 21:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. Since MOS:TM explicitly allows camel case, the move is within policy. -- BDD ( talk) 23:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Safenet → SafeNet – The title of the article should match the way the company spells its name. Timtempleton ( talk) 20:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.