Talk:Dan Wagner

message: I have tagged this article for cleanup because it reads more like promotional material rather than an encyclopedia article.  I may have a go at doing a rewrite in a few days, but will need to do some research before I can do this, as I am not familiar with the subject.  If anyone else wants to have a go at rewriting the article in the meantime, please feel free to do so.  Cheers Paul20070 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.cbronline.com/news/dialog_signs_multi_million_deal_with_fujitsu
*:Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.cbronline.com/news/maid_signs_hotel_internet_provider_deal_with_granada
*:Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan's PR agent (Techtrek) has added them back in, and succeeded in getting the page temporarily locked down. They need to be removed again. Boomboombangbang (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  DJAMP4444 19:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Boomboombangbang (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet again, Techtrek has added in blacklisted links. Please can they be removed. Thanks 66.249.93.233 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Please refer to above comment from Boomboombangbang. Blacklisted links have been re-added, please remove. 151.226.140.40 (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: . I removed the blacklisted links but still need to find references. DJAMP4444 19:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Techtrek has removed large amounts of sourced material and turned the article back into a PR piece with no reasoning or justification in the change logs and no discussion with other editors of the page. I have tried to engage with Techtrek on their talk page but have yet to receive a response. Can someone review the changes and give their opinion on the validity given this article has a number of warnings already pertaining to its advertising/PR nature. 66.249.93.141 (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2014 

message: A number of conflicts of interest have been identified of people updating this page, attempting to vandalise and damage Wikipedias neutrality, please see the Detail of Conflicts of Interest page .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ol king col (talk • contribs) 16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Interests 

message: There is clearly a number of entities trying to amend this page both positively into a puff piece and claims that there are  ex-employees trying to rewrite negatively. Both of these are against Wikipedia rules. Can I suggest that before any further amends are made (except by senior Editors) they are proposed on here, and then everyone can agree / disagree and collaborate which is what Wikipedia is all about after all. Ol king col (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets stop this descending into an Edit War 

message: Wikipedia definition of Vandalism = Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. []
The amends I made that  has reverted as being "vandalism" were externally sourced, and links provided. I ask  to explain on what basis they consider them to be vandalism? It has been requested that any changes are raised and can be discussed on here so that we can get consensus.
It is my belief that by reverting any negative and independantly verified and sourced updates  is responsible for vandalism as they are deliberately attempting to compromise Wikipedias integrity. They have made a number of unsourced claims to the re-write and repeatedly used language that is not in keeping with Wikipedias guidelines . It has been claimed on User talk:Techtrektalk page the they are  Flame PR [] if so then this must be disclosed. I ask  to please respond otherwise I will revert the change. Ol king col (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Techtrek 

message: I came across this page on user:OrangeMike's Talk page. Like many articles about people or businesses, the article gave me the impression of being written by competing advocates (an antagonist and promotionalist competing over NPOV). That doesn't mean that this is actually the case, but it is the impression I get from the article's content, which is part advertising and part poorly-sourced contentious material. 
For example, citing a crowd-sourced website like Glassdoor for criticisms of his management style is very far-afield from Wikipedia's policies about reliable sources. The source must have a reputation for fact-checking. However, all this excessive content added by PR promoters (presumably) regarding the "platforms" that his latest company is selling is wholly inappropriate. Much of the article content was not representative of the entire source, but either for the purposes of promotion or attack, gave me the impression of being selected or mis-represented.
I have not read discussions or edit-histories in detail, but at-a-glance, it seems likely both parties have plenty to complain about the other. If I can be of further help in some way, let me know.   CorporateM (Talk) 22:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input 

message: The Financial Times sources said "He gave up his job and used a scheme aimed at helping the unemployed to found Maid (Marketing Analysis and Information Database)". Does anybody understand what it's referring to about a "scheme to help the unemployed"? CorporateM (Talk) 13:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some pretty wild discrepencies between sources in some cases. For example, some sources say it was the Financial Times that called Dialog, Dial-a-Dog, while others say it was press, investors, or "widely used". I'm seeing a lot of different figures for how much money it was sold for and contradicting descriptions of some of his businesses and what services they offer. CorporateM (Talk) 02:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The scheme he refers to is unemployment benefit, otherwise known as the 'dole',http://www.cityam.com/article/1384144094/tech-powerhouse-who-wants-save-our-ailing-high-street  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.93.141 (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Another source, FT cutting, http://www.brightstation.com/press/2000%2002%2006%20-%20Sunday%20Times.pdf -  "He spent the next two years on the dole.." 151.226.140.40 (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

text: The scheme mentioned above may have been the forty quid a week handed out to the would-be self-employed/small business during the 1980s, widely regarded as a Tory scam to reduce the official unemployment figures.  Also the article doesn't make it altogether clear that Dialog was founded in 1967 (as a subsidiary of the Lockheed aerospace company) and was acquired from Knight-Ridder by MAID in 1997; the company was then rebranded as The Dialog Corporation. Caveat: I started working for MAID shortly before the Dialog takeover was finalised and stuck it out until Thomson sent my job to India in mid-2006. Mr Larrington (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can corroborate the testimony of Mr Larrington, having worked for MAID/Dialog/Thomson from May 1997 to February 2005; MAID was rebranded to Dialog AFTER Wagna acquired Knight Ridder in 1997, which was some considerable time after 'The company went public on the stock market in 1994'. Knight Ridder's product Dialog was the reason for the rebranding. DuncanCorps (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc/Notes 

message: Aigua was the name of the holding company which controlled a number of fashion blog sites, alongside the osoyou.com website. Aigua were acquired by Powa Technologies and rebranded to Powa Media, before all staff members being made redundant not longer after. Press release about the acquisition here: http://www.aiguamedia.com/ There aren't any sources about the redundancies, but a quick look at the date of thge last published article on any Powa Media site, alongside a search of LinkedIn should reveal the truth. With all that taken into consideration, I'd simply remove the sentence about Aigua from the section as it's not factual and it's confusing. Boomboombangbang (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: LinkedIn cannot be used as a source and the criterion for relevance of a layoff is the same as it is for content about the company's products or business - a credible, secondary source about Wagner that includes it. However, corporate structure is something that we can use primary sources for and it sounds like the structure is complicated enough to warrant explanation. I wonder if the primary holding company is public and would therefore have a 10-k filing that would confirm its subsidiaries, primary lines of business, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 20:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Business Holdings

message: Stands down as Attraqt chairman, share price rise. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/06/16/2166501/after-all-that-powa-another-departure-for-dan-wagner/http://www.standard.co.uk/business/postpowa-dan-wagner-quits-attraqt-to-head-for-fledgling-tech-venture-a3272371.html
2A02:C7F:C207:A800:224:1DFF:FE76:EDE6 (talk)
:Already in the article 2A02:C7F:C207:A800:224:1DFF:FE76:EDE6 (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Attraqt

message: *It is so obvious that user King col is the same person as the IP address. In my last two edits, I have corrected exact same mistake that was made by the user King Col and one made by the IP address  . Both of them are adding links as references to talkpage text without creating a dummy reference list. It is very clear and obvious that King col logs out to edit to avoid bringing scrutiny to his user account and when the page was finally locked, he started editing using his account. I will request an administrator to block this person for acting as multiple people which is fraud. --Techtrek (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You say "It is so obvious" and "It is very clear and obvious", but it is neither clear nor obvious to me. What is clear, however, is that you are determined to make the article conform to your point of view, by whatever means you can. You are likely to be blocked from editing if you continue in the same way. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not editing the article anymore as you can see from my agreement below. I will be suggesting my edits on talkpage and let more experienced users decide. But I am concerned that an editor is acting as atleast two people by using his IP address and his user account. --Techtrek (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin help required, user King col editing with IP addresses acting more than one people

message: Note that Startupnation and the others users have been blocked for sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Startupnation. SmartSE (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppetry

message: User: Techtrek has posted a picture of the subjecthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Wagner#/media/File:Dan_Wagner_-_UK_Serial_Tech_Entrepreneur.jpg, 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Profile Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  The change Techtrek made  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits 26th June 2017 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Dialog 

message: 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)
replies: text: Asked for a third opinion as changes are being reverted without discussion. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venda 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Legal action against Wellington Management & Ben White 

message: ======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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Should the price of the Dialog sale be removed given conflicting reports?

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: * previous discussion Talk:Dan_Wagner#Dialog 94.193.159.223 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: ======Survey======
* Support, as relevant to the subject. Ol king col (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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======
* previous discussion Talk:Dan_Wagner#Venda 94.193.159.223 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the subject's resignation from board of directors of Venda, as part of sale to Netsuite, be included?

message: * previous discussion Talk:Dan_Wagner#Venda 94.193.159.223 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: ======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)
thread_title: Should the statement 'Netsuite a division of Oracle' be included?

message: * 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: * previous discussion Talk:Dan_Wagner#Venda 94.193.159.223 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: ======Survey======
* Support / Include - The price the subject achieved from the sale of his business is relevant to the article. Ol king col (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the price of the Venda sale to Netsuite be included?

message: * Support / Include - The price the subject achieved from the sale of his business is relevant to the article. Ol king col (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * previous discussion Talk:Dan_Wagner#Venda 94.193.159.223 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: ======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)
replies: text: User 185.69.145.158 has been requested to undergo disclosure per WP:PAID. scope_creep (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the statement 'who has been called 'the founder of British eCommerce' be removed from the intro?

message: * 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)
replies: text: User 185.69.145.158 has been requested to undergo disclosure per WP:PAID. scope_creep (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * previous discussion Talk:Dan_Wagner#Intro 94.193.159.223 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: * previous discussion Talk:Dan_Wagner#Intro 94.193.159.223 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: ======Survey======
* Oppose - No sources, so can't be included Ol king col (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the claimed legal action by the subject against Ben White & Wellington be included in the article?

message: * Oppose - No sources, so can't be included Ol king col (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * previous discussion Talk:Dan_Wagner#Legal_action_against_Wellington_Management_.26_Ben_White 94.193.159.223 (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: TD

message: Regarding
* previous discussion Talk:Dan_Wagner#Intro 
* previous discussion Talk:Dan_Wagner#Profile_Picture
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)
thread_title:  Intro 

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

text:  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  who seems to have done much more work on this. Melcous (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: ''...founder phrase''

message: 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)
thread_title: Moderator Comment

message: 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)
thread_title: Notice

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ben White

message: There are three distinct questions for consideration here, each of which will be dealt with separately below:
*#Should Dan Wagner’s role as CEO of “Attraqt” be included in the article?
*#Should Dan Wagner’s role as CEO of “Rezolve” be included in the article?
*#Should the first paragraph of the Powa Technologies subsection be replaced? W12SW77 (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC for Dan Wagner Updates 

message: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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. and The Financial Times. 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)
thread_title: Should Dan Wagner’s role as CEO of “Attraqt” be included in the article?

message: 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 and the Wall Street Journal. 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)
thread_title: Should Dan Wagner’s role as CEO of “Rezolve” be included in the article?

message: 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, The Independent, and the Wall Street Journal. 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)
thread_title: Should there be more about what Wagner did at Powa Technologies?

message: 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)
thread_title: RFC Updates Discussion

message: I am submitting proposals for updates for review independent editors, as per paid WP:PAID. I have a conflict of interest as a paid consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by Dan Wagner, the subject of this article. 
1. In February 2024, the first sentence in the Career section, subsection “Powa Technologies" was removed by  for lacking a source. Please reinstate this, with sourcing, as the first sentence of the subsection:
In 2007, Wagner founded Powa Technologies, a company that sold e-commerce services and mobile technology.
RATIONALE:  High-quality source. Information widely reported. Many other sources could be added. Basic factual background about high-profile even in his career. 
2. In the Career section, Rezolve subsection, last sentence, please replace the following:  
This acquisition remains pending as of 2024.
WITH:
As of 2023, the acquisition remained incomplete.
RATIONALE:  The source for the last sentence of the Rezolve section is Primary. This statement requires too much possible interpretation to rely solely on Primary. I switched it with an article from the Telegraph in compliance with WP:RELIABLE policy. The sentence was updated to reflect the information provided by the source.
3. Please remove the paid contributor flag added in August 2023.  The template says that content on the page may need cleanup because there have been paid contributions. Yet almost every sentence of this page has been scrutinized on the Talk page since 2014. Many editors have weighed in. I count at least 17 Talk page posts since 2014. The page is also heavily monitored and changes without consensus have been reversed. E.g.     and 
This flag is meant for pages where content from a paid editor has not been reviewed.  Flags are not intended to be punitive if there are no issues with the page.  My disclosure of a COI on Talk coincided with the flag being placed, even though I have never directly edited anything on the page, as per WP:PAID. 
According to Template:Paid_contributions:
Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain why you tagged the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning. It has been almost a year and no discussion has been started.
Thank you.W12SW77 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests Edits for flag removal and source update