Talk:Web.com (1995–2007)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge with Interland

This is a probably not appropriate. See Interland for comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.223.59.198 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

66.223.59.xxx IP addresses such as this one traceroute back to Web.com (a.k.a. Interland): atl2prdcrrt01-vlan4.net.interland.net. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

Take a good look at this edit where an IP removed reference to a lawsuit. Every edit since (besides a spelling fix by Wiki Raja has been made by single purpose accounts and IPs who have only contributed to this and related topics. I don't think this article is anywhere near being neutral, so tagged for the time being.--Isotope23 18:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe this information was removed because it was not relevant and spammed. If you look at the IP that added the content, their only contribution to Wiki to date has been that one edit repeatedly. There is no reason to include an old lawsuit having nothing to do with the business in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.59.81 (talk • contribs) 22:31, February 2, 2007 (UTC)

66.223.59.xxx IP addresses such as this one traceroute back to Web.com (a.k.a. Interland): atl2prdcrrt01-vlan4.net.interland.net. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to this IP editor at User talk:Satori Son#Web.com listing. -- Satori Son 22:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) The motivation of the person who added the negative information does not seem relevant. I, and apparently others based on their edit summaries, have double checked the references and they do verify the information concerning the law suit and poor stock performance. I strongly encourage anyone who feels otherwise, including employees of Web.com, to discuss this situation here if you believe the information is being misrepresented somehow. Please be specific. -- Satori Son 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• The original article which I worked on was clearly put together by employees of the company, and it read like, and probably could have been speedy deleted as spam. I checked all sources, and the information appears to be correct as verified, so the rewritten version included the information about the litigation per my research of the article history. The above IP editor (web.com - through traceroute) claims the litigation is irrelevant, and the PR department of Web.com has now owned up to prior reversions of what they consider "vandalism". It is now carefully cleaned up and monitored by established users such as Isotope23 and myself, there should be no more excuses for removals unless it can be sourced (in other words: "put up or shut up"). Even if the case has been drpped, it would probably still be relevant and worth keeping, but with a note added to the effect. Ohconfucius 08:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

66.223.59.xxx IP addresses traceroute back to Web.com (a.k.a. Interland)

These IP addresses traceroute to atl2prdcrrt01-vlan4.net.interland.net.

See:

• Conflict of Interest Guideline
• Biographies of Living People Policy

Articles for which a conflict of interest exists:

• Web.com
• Joel Kocher (company executive)
• Simpli -- former employer of some of the individuals above
  • ValueClick -- current owner of Simpl
• Trellix (Web.com division)

--A. B. ^(talk) 03:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well at least they are creating accounts now...

A user with a relatively singular edit history has been removing the stock performance link with the note that it was misleading based on the source (i.e. the article stated 2006; source did not). The answer here of course is to correct the article, not remove the sourced section completely. I've restored it and correctly attributed it to being one of the ten worst over the last 10 years.--Isotope23 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Watch them squirm - they probably now wish they never started it! I have further corrected the article for the stock performance. Although it was misleading, it is now obvious that the initial version was far too kind to them. The article implies that there has ben a massive destruction of shareholder value over a ten year period: the negative returns on the stock means that it is now worth 2.2% of what it was worth 10 years ago! Now that the information is largely correct, they ought to be running out of excuses for deleting chunks of it. Ohconfucius 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Isotope23 and Ohconfucius,
    • I think you are misunderstanding these changes. No-one is trying to present something biased but these facts you keep using are slanted. How is a 5 year old uneventful court case that seems irrelevant to the business something that should show up on an encyclopedia, for example. That said, Interland has had all of the problems you mention and more. BUT…Web.com is a new company, with a new NASDAQ stock ticker symbol and a different management team. Since the company started, it has increased shareholder value. The lawsuits mentioned are not recent and were all started during the Interland era. These things should be on the Interland page, not this page. I will try to take a stab at a completely unbiased view but I am worried that the people who added this in the first place will just delete it. People who know and care about the company are doing this and that is why we keep erasing the information. I for one have no problem leaving it in but the information should be more broad so it tells the whole story. We should all try to be unbiased and factual. It is just wrong to say these things (exclusively) about web.com simply because it includes and took over Interland.
    • I have no problem with an fair unbiased article (that is what we are shooting for here), but if you take some time to look through previous versions that were posted from IP's that resolved to the company they were pretty much fluff jobs that were written like so much marketing spiel. That said, I have no problem leaving this up until I have time to go through it and look at all the sources/additions.--Isotope23 00:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, the article was a rather poor one both in terms of content and style, and I would also be happy to help making it a better one. Whilst I do sympathise with you, I believe that there are just some things which cannot be "swept under the carpet". Running a company in the business sector of web.com is not easy due to the openness and constant change, but the company (or its previous incarnation) does have baggage which wI believe would be better to own than white-wash. What fellow editors have been objecting to is the manner in which the changes have been brought about by web.com/interland employees in an apparently clandestine manner (IP address accounts) and making an article which read like a company advert. Obviously, if there were more objective factual information in the article, the company's controversies settle into their context. Therefore, I would advise you and your colleages to refer to wikipedia's policies when updating the article, in particular WP:V, WP:RS, which should not be a problem for a listed company, and in your case, I would strongly advise you to bear in mind WP:NPOV and WP:COI, and exercise some restraint when reversing the edits of fellow wikipedians. As you have discovered the article's talk page, so if in doubt, general or explanatory comments can be placed there concurrent with the changes you make. (moved from my talk page) Ohconfucius 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Litigation and other disputed article content -- refer to the company's SEC filings

The company's quarterly Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lists all litigation the company thinks is relevant. I suggest that be used as the basis for judging what's relevant to this article and what's not. While it might seem at first that a report written by the company itself might be unreliable, management and the board risk personal liability if they knowingly understate any problems and risks to their shareholders.

Their most recent Form 10-Q was filed 9 November 2006. Since that time, they filed a Form 8-K report with the SEC reporting the settlement of their lawsuit against their former insurance carrier.

More information on SEC reports can be found at:

• Category:SEC Filings
• SEC filing
• EDGAR -- the SEC's electronic database

You can search EDGAR for company filings; here's a link to the Web.com filings.
--A. B. ^(talk) 01:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of Feb 6

Following improvemnts of the article by User:Movtoo, I have done some further tidying up, created a few new headings, removing some redundant (repeated) sentences, and added the infobox. I thought that the reference to the web.com merger and change of name was too positive a spin. Web.com was a small company taken over by (not merged with due to the vastly differing sizes) Interland, who used the admittedly sexier name as a means of turning a page in its history. I have repositioned it for what it was. Ohconfucius 03:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In the course of my cleanup, User:70.128.255.56 removed the paragraph relating to the improvement in the share price as "false information". He/she has furthermore removed the claim about the 4 million websites as unverified per WP:RS.

I fail to see how the stock price claim is false: the data is real enough and verefied. Although the timeframe selected may be considered arbitrary and favours the company, I believe the author has explained and adequately justified his choice as the beginning of the turnaround, although admittedly, the August 1 anticipates Stibel's arrival by 10 days so the comparison should arguably have started at the closing price on that day ($2.49). It has now been rebased at that level in the article. Juxtaposed against the 10 year negative returns, I believe that it cannot be considered misleading.

For the moment, I cannot access the document which established the number of subscribers, nor do I have access to SEC information, which would tend to be reliable although self-published, so cannot attest to the veracity of the claims, and I invite those with paid access to same to attest the existence of this claim in the filing. I have not restored this deletion for the time being. Ohconfucius 04:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

While there are SEC mirrors that heavily advertise and charge for SEC documents, you can get them for free at:

• http://edgar.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html

Here are the latest Web.com documents:

• http://edgar.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=Web.com&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=&owner=include&action=getcompany

And here is a link to the main section of the latest 10-Q:

• http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/854460/000095014406010655/g04082e10vq.htm

If you still can't access these, let me know and I will send you a PDF copy.

--A. B. ^(talk) 13:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

64.126.14.3

This IP is only editing Web.com and appears to consistently pull anything positive included by Movtoo, A.B.,or Ohconfucius. They also seem stuck on providing excess detail on a case about an old acquisition. I can’t even find anything about that old company online anymore—does it still exist? Personally, I am not sure how it is relevant to the company's page. I think even the stuff about how the company is suing and winning should be gone (ie, the positive and negative really doesn’t seem relevant). In any event, Movtoo consolidated what seems to be identical info and 64.126.14.3 continues to spell out things that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia.

• A.B. rightfully pointed out that this level of detail belongs in a public companies filings. If Microsoft's page, for example, listed every piece of litigation, it would take hours to read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.223.59.81 (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

1. If litigation is sufficiently material to be included in the company's SEC filings, it's very relevant here.
2. IP addresses registered to Web.com/Interland (66.223.59.xxx) should never edit Web.com-related articles; if they have concerns, they can express them on this talk page. 66.223.59.81, these article edits of yours[1][2] violate the Conflict of Interest Guideline. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• We are not talking about any old litigation here. The acquisition of CommuniTech.Net, Inc. appears important enough to the company, so I wager it's warranted to mention the dispute over $26 million in unpaid consideration in a sentence or three. Ohconfucius 08:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Financial results

When the company publishes its next 10K, I will include a financial performance section, which should put paid to many arguments about selective inclusion of favourable or unfavourable info. In the meantime, I have reversed the edits by 64.126.14.3 and User:Movtoo as being unsourced. In particular, Movtoo's assertion of the CEO's starting date. We can only assume the company would have got the right starting date in the press release. SEC filings only say August, no precise date is mentioned. I agree with A. B.: it's high time for these edits in violation of WP:COI to stop. Ohconfucius 08:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

66.223.59.* and user Movtoo continue to vandalize the article

IP addresses tracing back to Web.com continue to vandalize the article against COI policies repeated on this talk page. Consideration should be given to banning this subnet of IPs given the ongoing violations even after a number of warnings. 70.128.255.56 03:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The back and forth over this article has to stop. I have taken this article and these disputes to the Requests for Comment process for assistance in resolving this. Please take a look at that page for instructions on how the process works.

As I understand the process, editors involved in the dispute add comments in the "Statements by ..." section while others use the "Comments" section. All participants on all sides are encouraged to make statements below.--A. B. ^(talk) 04:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a dispute about:

1. Who should be allowed to edit this article in light of the Conflict of Interest Guideline
2. What information should be included in this article

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute:

• This article is one of a number of inter-related articles involving Web.com, Web.com executives, and their former employers created in violation of the Conflict of Interest Guideline. A summary of these articles and editors can be found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Peter Delgrosso. Since a light was shown on all of this, some of these articles have been deleted. This article, however, remains a battleground between:
  • Editors using company computers (IP addresses in the 66.223.59.xxx all traceroute to atl2prdcrrt01-vlan4.net.interland.net; Interland was the predecessor to Web.com) plus Movtoo (talk • contribs • count)
  • Other editors
    

--A. B. ^(talk) 04:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• I am not interested in the company but was drawn here in the course of the delgrosso AfD. I was surprised to see such activity over an article of a company. This and Interland were both battlegrounds before they were merged. Immediately before I got involved, the web.com article was so squeaky clean it was fit to be speedied as spam. More recently, 70.128.255.56 joined the fray by constantly injecting usually factual information taken from the company's SEC filings and selectively including a negative slant. Information in SEC filings may be true and verifiable, but may not necessarily be encyclopaedic - it is not wikipedia's vocation to mirror all SEC information. Although User:Movtoo still has a tendency to spin, he/she seems of late to be behaving with some restraint, but still sometimes assumes we know what he knows as an insider. In the case of 70.128.255.56, I suspect there also to be a conflict of interest. The article has been oscillating between extremes of non-NPOV and occasionally possessing unencyclopaedic tone. It occurs to me that the vast majority of vandal edits have been made by IP editors, who would probably be deterred by semi-protection of the article. If there are then problems with identified editors, we could look at a selective ban. Ohconfucius 09:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• I fully agree with the comments above, including my own edits early on. I was frustrated by the negative slant made by certain IP editors and went over the top correcting things but have long since stopped that. The appropriate thing is to provide an accurate and complete encyclopaedic view of the company, without a slant or trivial information. Certain things on the page don't really seem interesting or noteworthy to someone looking at this page in an encyclopedia, especially as compared to other public company pages. That said, a number of editors have tried to be very unbiased and leave referenced material (bias or not) but things are out of hand. A semi-protection may in fact be the right decision here because the article is likely to be irrelevant if too much information is present or worse, unfactual if 70.128.255.56 and the other IP addresses continue to place inacurrate information on the page. --Movtoo 14:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Per the continual edit warring, I've protected this article for the time being. Sort it out here and I'll unprotect (or ask another admin to do it if I'm not around).--Isotope23 19:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

70.128.255.56

This IP is only editing Web.com and appears to consistently pull anything positive included by Movtoo, A.B.,or Ohconfucius. I had consolidated what seems to be identical info and 70.128.255.56 continues to spell out things that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia.

• Frankly, I recommend that it remains protected. It is being abused all over and this is a public company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movtoo (talk • contribs) 19:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
  • We don't indefinitely protect articles.--Isotope23 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Isoptope is right -- nothing stays protected long. The fix is to engage in the Request for Comment process above. If that doesn't work there are futher, more cumbersome (and potentially unpleasant) resolution mechanisms we all' want to avoid. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I looked at the edits by 70.128.255.56 and I do not see where this user "consistently pulls anything positive"; I do not see where this user has removed anything positive. The user has supplemented the article with detail in the legal section and updates to the Websource Media acquisition. I do see where he had several reverts based on removal of info by Movtoo. Upon invesitgation the information added by 70.128.255.56 appears to be accurate and sourced, but removed by IP addrs of the company since this information is not what the company wants out in the public but is information either in the company's filings or in 3rd party articles. User Movtoo has an IP address that traces back to Web.com and it seems the company and/or its employees consistent edit out accurate information to put their spin on the article. It also seems that there are on-going COI issues with 66.223.59.* that continue to persist after warnings. I suggest banning any user who edits the article who is affiliated with the company or any user who removes legitimate, correct information on the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.55.131.66 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • How can you tell what Movtoo's IP address is? What is it anyway? --A. B. ^(talk) 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The IP addresses 216.55.131.66 and 64.126.14.7 (both frequent editors to the Gabriel Murphy legal proceedings and Motley Fool article) trace back to Abacus Direct servers, which as owned by Aplus.net, which coincidentally are operated and partially owned by Mr. Murphy). The search was conducted on domainwhitepages.com. Their edits are completely self serving. These two editors consistantly rearrange and front load their biased legal comments on the web.com page. This is a NPOV violation and a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Movtoo (talk • contribs) 11:25, 14 February 2007

• Also coincidentally, the IP domains 216.55.131.66 and 64.126.14.7 no longer exist. Ohconfucius 04:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• And now it looks like they are using new IPs (70.250.40.106). They are getting smarter but it is a bit absurd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movtoo (talk • contribs) 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

NPOV / Copyright

The last paragraph "WebsitePros" is literally taken from a release of both companies. I will try to edit.--Peter Eisenburger 20:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Numbers and sources

The whole financial section should be rewritten, being POV, segmented and obviously originating from company people. For now I added some financial numbers for the time of 2004 - 2006 including sources.--Peter Eisenburger 15:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts not welcome?

66.223.59.150, please don't delete factual and referenced statements like you did here.--Peter Eisenburger 16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Did a little research and 37% of the decline in revenues came from a sale of their dedicated service assets to a Canadian company called Peer 1, the transaction was announced in a press release on 9/6/2005. --skyylight 5:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you cited your source for that.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Website Pros

This is a company page and the company has now been merged with another public company. While there are some interesting facts here, this is not worthy of an encyclopedia listing. This page should be merged, which is consistent with treatment in other areas, including this page (see below, as Interland was in fact merged with Web.com)! --Obgydd 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See discussion at Companies project page. BTW Obgydd: its senseless to place comments on the talk page of an article that you delete with a redirect. The normal user will not be able to read it.--Peter Eisenburger 07:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would argue again that this company page should be merged. It is now merged with Website Pros. Regardless, the page should be shortened significantly to highlight high-level relevant information only.--Obgydd 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, but looking at your new created account I see that you have not edited anything before in Wikipedia. Why start with deleting a whole article or "significant" sections of it? - You are right that the Web.com article should be streamlined. But that has to be done with care and by someone well acquainted with the subject. --Peter Eisenburger 13:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits and placed a comment on the user's talk page. --Peter Eisenburger 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the merger has been announced two users who haven't been much in editing before come here and rush to delete the article totally or most parts of it. That's not practice at Wikipedia. Information on companies which have been bought by other companies stay as information on defunct companies. We are not a "Who is Who in Business, Ed. 2008", but an encyclopedia. As such we give historical information on the economic world also. Web.com is a company with a 12-year old history and has a well-known importance in the world of the Internet. It's no argument that the Interland (former Web.com) article had been deleted also. Valuebale information has vanished from Wikipedia.

I suppose User:Obgydd and User:Skyylight are the same or work with multiple accounts. I too think there are personal issues or conflicts of interests. See also User talk:Obgydd and [3].--Peter Eisenburger 19:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I add a few examples to prove what our practice is: Macromedia, Ulead Systems, PeopleSoft, Siebel Systems, and others from this list. All companies have been bought and keep their slightly modified articles. Note that what is called a merger in fact means that Web.com has been bought by Website Pros - given the details of the deal.--Peter Eisenburger 20:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the thoughts Peter, although I do not necessarily agree with all of them. As you know, there are many more companies that have had their pages removed after a merger (Interland for instance) but you won't find them (b/c they are gone). In any event, no use arguing. It looks like someone took a stab at condensing the article but you again reverted back. I understand that you feel strongly about your content so I will take a stab at removing the stuff that is not relevant now that the company is merged but will keep your writing (and the writing of others) for the key facts. Hopefully this will be a fair compromise and good starting point.--Obgydd 18:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not about my contributions but those of the community. I oppose all further removing of content and urge you to stop it. I really think you execute company policies.--Peter Eisenburger 18:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's written better now, my friend. But you deleted all negative facts and claim a history of growing revenue. That's wrong. Web.com faced heavy decreases in revenue and made losses. Since I am getting tired of the edit war with you I asked an administrator to care for it.--Peter Eisenburger 19:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peter that much of the text is better written (thanks, Obgydd), but I see no reason to delete large sections of somewhat negative information that is obviously well-sourced. I have restored. Further discussion is welcome, of course. -- Satori Son 13:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Though there remain two errors. (1) Web.com is not a subsidiary now but a defunct company. User Obgydd also overwrote the "defunct company info box". (2) The revenue numbers are wrong. Web.com had revenue = 49.140 Million US$ (2006) and loss in 6 months of 2007. Please decide whether the defunct infobox is to restore. Then I will edit the soon to be released 9 months numbers in the text. Or keep the standard company infobox where I also will edit the updated numbers.--Peter Eisenburger 13:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys and I appreciate the help. When two companies merge, one folds into the other. Companies rarely go fully defunct unless they are bankrupt. With most all mergers, one (typically the larger) assumes the other, creating a subsidiary. I believe the filings show Web as a subsidiary of the new company but I am sure someone can find that out. As for revenues, the total revenues of the new company is what is relevant I believe but your call I guess. As for the things I pulled out, most of it didn't seem relevant anymore to a subsidiary. And the legal stuff, for example, din't seem relevant anymore as the company is now part of a larger entity. That said, I will leave it as is and let someone else chime in or make changes...Maybe Peter can take a run at summarizing it in a sentence or two instead of dedicating half of the page to it (assuming he feels strongly it should remain). Most companies (ie, Apple, Microsoft) have tons of legal stuff on their corporate filings but I never see that here on Wiki pages. It is well-sourced but is it relevant? If so, we are probably missing 30 other things and should start adding all of this to every other company out there (that was sarcasm; please don't start adding legal stuff to every corporate page just because it is in a companies corporate filing--they need to disclose all of that, which may be relevant to shareholders but not likely to people reading a encyclopedia).--Obgydd 14:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeff (?), I agree that not all legal issues may be relevant but (1) there are cases that are still pending like the Heitmann case. And (2) it's not a single users business to delete it alltogether and step on the community's work like you did. - Generally - as I explained before - an encyclopedia keeps information of defunct companies, died people, merged countries.

Regarding your subsidiary argument. Web.com will be at best a business unit of WSP but more probably as I read the press releases will be incorporated by Web.com. It will be no company in the legal or any other sense any more.

I ask you to explain your account policies. You frequently change your accounts or have multiple ones.--Peter Eisenburger 15:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As I may add, the Heitman case is about $26.7 million. Isn't that the profit of Website Pros for one year four times?? (I take the profit of WSP because Web.com hasn't made one for a few years.) Guess what will happen to the share price if WSP is sentenced to pay? Don't you think the shareholders and the public has a right to be informed about this matter?? Was it you or a sock puppet of you who kept on deleting these facts from the Interland article? --Peter Eisenburger 15:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Too funny! And here I thought you were working for one of their competitors until I saw your photos (which are very nice by the way). In any event, I think you are missing my point completely. The question is what is relevant for this web page. Again, this is supposed to be an online encyclopedia. Most of this stuff does not rise to that level. As for the legal stuff, maybe the company should disclose all of this (and they do as you point out) but don’t mistake a pending case with a verdict. Just about anyone in the US can sue for anything. McDonalds was sued for millions b/c someone spilled coffee in their laps! In any event, I think you are missing my main point. Bad or good, positive or negative, let’s keep it brief and concise and try to write a good page. This page is littered with poor writing and duplicate information. At least your other pages that you seem to control tell a good story (although I would argue there is too much information there as well). As for account policies, that I do not understand. I had another account but I forgot my password.--Obgydd 23:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Web.logo.gif

Image:Web.logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Name change of WSP to Web.com

Regarding the announced name change I propose a procedure as explained here.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked an admin to assist.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

See my latest edits and talk here.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)