:::If you don't mind, I'm trying to piece this page together. Stop trying to put down these attempts by trying to paint me into a small box of "oh, he must loathe Digital Homicide, and decided that a greaaaaat idea is to do so on the one site where it won't slide". 
 :::It is true that I have a negative opinion of Digital Homicide, as will nearly everyone familiar with their behaviour. But this is not an attack piece. Digital Homicide has been a major topic of Jim's weekly show, podcast and also some less-notable news outlets for just over a year now. It is something that is notable, and as such, deserves to be on the page. I believe the timespan deserved is from the first takedown, beyond the interview, and to the point where Jim exposed the extent of their shovelware being put onto steam through sockpuppet accounts. 
 :::If I wanted to create an "attack piece" on Digital Homicide, I would rather make their own page, and use the sources to back up it's creation. I'd not want to use the wiki page of Jim's as a battlefield, particularly as I respect him a hell of a lot as a critic. 
 :::That is not my goal. My goal is to try to make this page as up to date as possible. 
 :::I'll thank you to also not trivialise this company in respect to Jim's coverage. They have released 20 games, over half of which have been covered by Jim. They have had three episodes over the past year focused entirely on them (with many, many others mentioning them as part of episodes, such as "The Asset Flip", as well as a 1 hour, 40 minute interview. By any standards, this is an abnormal amount of time spent on an indie developer from a reviewer and critic, and the relationship between the two is notable. 
 :::Will I be able to type it neutrally? most likely not. But the issue here is not yet neutrality, it is sources. When the sources are gathered, it can be written up, and reviewed for neutrality by other users. I do not care how it is worded. Hell, go the other way and paint them as poor, misguided children for all I care, though that wuld be factually wrong. What I care about, is that the detail is in this page. It has been a long-running situation, and it deserves coverage.