Talk:Dan Wagner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:


Clean Up[edit]

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)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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:

    Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist
    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)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOffline 08:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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)
 Done DJAMP4444 19:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Boomboombangbang (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yet again, Techtrek has added in blacklisted links. Please can they be removed. Thanks (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Please refer to above comment from Boomboombangbang. Blacklisted links have been re-added, please remove. (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone provide alternative links to paywalled material please? (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done. I removed the blacklisted links but still need to find references. DJAMP4444 19:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have re-written the entire article to remove the PR speak, self promotion aspects, and make it more neutral, all claims are now (I believe) fully sourced, with appropriate links to external sources. User:ol king col — Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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. (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interests[edit]

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 [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ol king col (talkcontribs) 16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Lets stop this descending into an Edit War[edit]

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)


Wikipedia definition of Vandalism = Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. [[2]]

The amends I made that Techtrek has reverted as being "vandalism" were externally sourced, and links provided. I ask Techtrek 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 Techtrek 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 [3]. It has been claimed on User talk:Techtrektalk page the they are Flame PR [[4]] if so then this must be disclosed. I ask Techtrek to please respond otherwise I will revert the change. Ol king col (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


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)

Content for consideration[edit]

In the interest of building a consensus, I'd like to suggest re-adding the Donald Duck waistcoat incident which traders attribute to a 10p fall in the stock price of MAID. Thanks (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree and have added back the reference Techtrek (talk — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, first consensus reached.

I'd also like to suggest a change to the Tony Blair quote. To be consistent with the change CorporateM did with the David Cameron quote, I suggest we remove the quoted text and have, 'In 1997, Wagner agreed a deal to licence search technology (InfoSort) to Fujitsu of Japan[14] which was hailed by Prime Minister Tony Blair. (ref)'. (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As per CorporateM guidance below, I have removed the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to suggest adding in some information with regards to Powa initially being a spin-off from Venda, with Mr Wagner acquiring the Venda SBS (small business) brand and technology from Venda following his exit from the executive board, and rebranding it to Powa. Ref: There are also old docs on Powa's servers still called Venda-SBS, alongside a rebranded Venda SBS YouTube channel. Boomboombangbang (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the quote, in most cases it is best to avoid quoting press articles where possible, because quotes are almost always used to incorporate a non-encyclopedic tone from the source we wouldn't otherwise use. Regarding information about the companies he has operated, the primary criteria for relevance is whether the source material found relevance. In other words, if the subject of the source is Dan Wagner, and it talks about his accomplishment at a certain company, than it's relevant. If the subject of the source is the company and Dan is only quoted, than those sources should only be used in minor supplemental ways if at all.CorporateM (Talk) 13:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest adding some additional content in relation to the reverse acquisition of Knight Ridder Information, specifically, a consequence Wagner has mentioned in this interview,, specifically the redundancies, 30% of the workforce, 400 jobs. (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article, what is the proposed wording? Do we have a secondary source?Ol king col (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

An article for consideration, — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article, what is the proposed wording? The article is one websites investigation so should get some corroborating evidence to ensure it is valid, not that I dont think for a second that techcrunch isn't reputableOl king col (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

More material for consideration, (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that is serious or notable enough for posting. Ol king col (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The missed ebay investment opportunity should be on here as well. The Guardian states, "Wagner is best known for deciding not to invest $1m in 30% of eBay back in the day.", and this, (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Any additional sources or verification?Ol king col (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There's been an amend made that hasn't been discussed on here. User:Techtrek has amended "a deal investors in London nicknamed Dial-a-dog" now reads "resulting with certain investors in London nicknaming the company Dial-a-dog", the source article clearly states that it was "widely dubbed Dialadog" I would suggest it is either amended back or amended to state in accordance with the article - "a deal widely dubbed Dialadog by investors in London". I feel the amend as it has been made is not reflective of the source. Ol king col (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Could User:CorporateM please give his opinion since this is rewriting copy he put together? Alternatively User:Orangemike has weighed in on this article.Ol king col (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This source is an interview and should therefore be treated similar to primary sources and used only with caution to fill in gaps where we couldn't find better, more independent sources. This is because while it is published in an independent source, the content is not in the voice of the reporter; rather the magazine is just acting as a conduit for statements made directly by the article-subject.
  • TechCrunch is a reliable source. Keeping in mind that it borders on a gossip rag and BLP encourages us to write "conservatively" about living people. However, I see some content from this source, both good and bad, that could be added.
  • This source just quotes Dan commenting on an issue and doesn't have anything of encyclopedic value. The same goes for certain parts of the prior source from TechCrunch. Generally being quoted in the press is not anything we include here.
Regarding the Dial-a-dog thing - it is a highly offensive comment that would require strong sources and BLP would encourage us to lean on the side of caution. The source I read said it was a name given by "critics". It's place in the Lead at the top of the article also seems to give it pretty prominent placement in the article. It may actually warrant a place in the Lead, but the Lead should also be larger so that it is not such a dominant element of it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in User:CorporateM Re dialadog, it is Wagners primary basis for fame and news articles often mention it as such The Guardian references it early in the article as "the technology company that City wags renamed Dial-a-dog". The article linked in the opening City Wire as noted above, The Telegraph "Wagner’s last listed business, Dialog, was nicknamed Dial-a-dog by City wags", City am / Daily Mail "earned the unflattering nickname Dial-a-dog among investors", The Financial Times, as it is something that is referenced so frequently, and with such promininace across a variety of sources I think that its inclusion in the Lead is appropriate. ol king col (Talk)06:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent edits to the article CorporateM. The article is far more balanced and concise. I'd like to suggest changes to the career section, specifically the Powa section. You have written 'That same year he also founded Powa, an e-commerce business based on mPowa, a mobile payments service. Users of the service can make purchases by taking a picture of the item they want to buy.' You are referring to powatag, part of powa's product portfolio. This was launched in march this year. Despite the media material, you cannot make a purchase by taking a picture of the item. You need to scan a qr code or listen to an audio source which has been watermarked. The intial product launched by powa was powa ecommerce platform, spun out of venda. (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide an alternate, independent source you feel provides a more accurate description? (preferably a source focused on Wagner, but it doesn't have to be) CorporateM (Talk) 15:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
here's one for powatag with additional detail on how it functions, (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Refers to his leaving Venda and founding Powa Technologies using Venda technology. Specifically, acquiring and rebranding the Venda for small businesses platform. It's worth highlighting that stuff has been rebranded a few times. Powa Technologies initially only offered a single product, which was an ecommerce platform, this is now called PowaWeb. mPowa is a mobile point of sale solution, similar to Square, this has since been rebranded to PowaPOS. PowaTag is the newest platform which is essentially a mobile wallet which feeds into an ecommerce backend and allows the purchase of products through the scanning of a QR code or watermarked piece of audio. Boomboombangbang (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


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)

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)
The scheme he refers to is unemployment benefit, otherwise known as the 'dole', — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Another source, FT cutting, - "He spent the next two years on the dole.." (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)

Business Holdings[edit]

Aigua was the name of the holding company which controlled a number of fashion blog sites, alongside the 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: 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)

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)

June 2016[edit]

Suggested Edits[edit]

Court Action[edit]

Subject of court action (bankruptcy court) by former Powa director Ben White relating to a personally guaranteed loan to Powa.[1]


Stands down as Attraqt chairman, share price rise. [2][3] 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)

User:Hdeimbacher Seems to be another Dan Wagner related PR fluff account. He has primarily edited the Attraqt page, and the page for Andre Brown. (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Admin help required, user King col editing with IP addresses acting more than one people[edit]

  • 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 [5] [6]. 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)
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)
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)

Recent edits and page protection[edit]

I noticed that the page was protected as a result of recent disruption. This version should continue to stand according to WP:WRONGVERSION and changes should be discussed before going further if you wish to mutually work on this article and not get reported for continuing those IPs disruption (which may also mean that you were editing without logging in). --Techtrek (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Hello. I have reverted User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I do not wish to revert you any more as you appear to be some one experienced, nor do I wish to prom IPote the subject of this article. Anything some one neutral wants to write is acceptable. The IP address (sock puppets of user King col) are bent on defaming the subject and are using blogs from FT as sources. Blogs are not credible sources especially when it comes to WP:BLP. Please take notice of this and discuss the edit before inserting them into the article. I think you as a n experienced editor will not be quick to revert and discuss accordingly. Thank you. --Techtrek (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Re: your tag, please explain what part of the article do you think is written like an advert. I will be happy to collaborate with you to make it factual only. --Techtrek (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not intend to edit war but WP:BLP is an exemption to this which is why I reverted. I appreciate all wikipedia policies and will strictly abide by them. I, thus, invite experienced wikipedia editors to get involved in this, read the sources (blogs) which were referencing content as fact and are BLP violations. Please discuss so that we can stabilize this article into something everyone will accept according to WP:NPOV. --Techtrek (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's inaccurate. Looking at the revision you refer to, it sources, the Financial Times (main publication) as well as another FT publication, alphaville (listed on the FT site), and the BBC. A quick google search yields plenty more material from other publication, including one about yourself, [1], reiterating what many have suggested on this page, that you have an undeclared interest in the subject matter. is particularly interesting, FlamePR own the copyright of the photo and you're the author, the same FlamePR mentioned here [2] and [3]. You omit Powa Technologies from the opening paragraph, which is the source of his recent publicity given it was a failed unicorn startup, but mention Rezolv. Here's some articles to help balance to this piece.
The last one is particularly useful.
Also, regarding the awards, does not list him as a recipient of the Ernst and Young Entrepreneur of the Year 1998.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C207:A800:787D:1FBC:D372:5840 (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC) 
Indeed, those are excellent sources and that material should definitely be in the article. BTW, @Techtrek: since you clearly have a direct WP:COI you should not be directly editing the article at all. You appear to have managed to stay beneath the radar up until now: That ends tonight. If you edit the article again, you will have the opportunity to justify your editing somewhere slightly more public. In future, make your suggested edits here, on the talk page, and they will be added (or not) according to the consensus of the community. Cheers. Muffled Pocketed 10:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted article to as was at time of @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: last amend [1] at 18:32, 21 June 2016 before @Techtrek: amends. ol king col (Talk)11:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. The blogs referenced (FT alphavile and business insider) are using unnamed sources as the basis of their stories. These are not credible as per WP:AVOIDVICTIM and [7]. Also, the textual commentary is in breach of Wikipedia rules by not being factual and instead inferring emotion. Examples:

"He is best known for his leadership of Dialog and its subsequent 95% share price drop in 2000,[1] and for being the CEO of Powa Technologies, where he raised in excess of $200 million of funding[2] before leading it into administration within 30 months in early 2016.[3]"
  • Not true. I am saying this, because he's not 'best known' for being a CEO of a tech company at the time of the dot com crash. There were thousands of companies that saw their share prices collapse at that time. 'Fame' isn't tied to the dot com crash - that company survived the crash and was sold for half a billion dollars a few months afterwards! This content is violating Wikipedia:Cherrypicking rules.
"In February, 2016, the FT reported Powa technologies had missed payments to staff and third parties,[29] a mere two years after raising $175m investment, and despite the huge investment, Powa was said to still be 'pre-revenue"
  • This was reported as rumour from a blog called FT Alphaville which is not the FT and was not a factual report. 'A mere two years' - infers judgement. 'despite the huge investment,' infers that the investment is huge. The whole thing should be removed.
"After the collapse of Powa Technologies a series of articles by The Financial Times and the BBC called into question several claims that had been made by Dan Wagner during his tenure as CEO. Powa's self-proclaimed 2014 valuation of $2.6 billion was investigated and the Financial Times concluded that £75 million was a more accurate figure.[30] A "10-year strategic alliance with ‘limitless’ potential” deal with China UnionPay that Wagner described in a quote to the BBC as “Why did China UnionPay decide to partner with a little British technology company? We’ve trumped ApplePay and the rest of the world here.” was found to be nothing of the kind[31][32] and most of the partners that Wagner claimed had signed deals with Powa were found to be just Letters of Intent at best.[33][34]"
  • All these assertions are from the one FT Alphaville blog which is NOT the Financial Times as stated. The BBC piece is similarly rehashing the unreferenced comments from Business Insider and FT Alphaville. The Financial Times never wrote anything so salacious instead they stuck to the facts which were that the business went into administration. Therefore this whole section should be removed.

I believe this is part of a defamation campaign against the person where wikipedia is being used as a tool for this agenda (among other platforms and who ever is doing this, whether it is King Col or someone else, this is a clear conflict of interest and the only user that shows the same behaviour is King Col and the IPs). Although you people are claiming that I have a conflict of interest, if that is true by any mark, King Col and the IPs adding such disinformation also clearly have a conflict of interest according to WP:COI and they should not be editing the article as well. I suggest that you revert the latest edit by King Col and bring him to the talkpage to discuss this as I have agreed to your suggestion of only discussing and suggesting problems with this article instead of editing directly. If I can comply to the rules, King Col should do the same. Let me bring your attention to another sniffy comment in this article which is not anything an encyclopedia should be stating:

Wagner became known for becoming a CEO of a public company in his 20s which is even more impressive given at the time he was 31.
  • Either it should be removed or simply say "Wagner became known for becoming a CEO of a public company in his early 30s".

As you can see, this article is being made a WP:COATRACK and a way of victimization.

--Techtrek (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Given what has happened recently, he's probably better known for the collapse of Powa Technologies given it was a unicorn ($1bn+ value) company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C207:A800:F54D:142D:A0A3:7A09 (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
From the ft main publication, (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, incorrect. The BBC article has original material relating to the China UnionPay claim. The ft alphaville article uses companies house publicly available information as well as legal documents from the US to analyse the valuation of Powa Technologies. I suggest you re-read all the source material. Also, no legal action was taken against any of the sourced material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C207:A800:F54D:142D:A0A3:7A09 (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Wkipedia uses actual reliable references as source and if a blog has commentary on some other sources, that blog can not be used as a reliable source even if that blog belongs to a news site. The article in question is from the blog of the news site and not a formal article of FT itself which is monitored by their editorial board. Probably best known for and your commentary on the matter is your personal opinion and judgement which has absolutely no value here especially when it comes to a biography of a living person, credible sources and factual information is a must. --Techtrek (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This intro is aweful and misleading and not what he is "best known for". It is another WP:BLP violation:

Daniel Maurice Wagner (born 28 July 1963) is a British Internet entrepreneur. He is best known for his leadership of Dialog and its subsequent 95% share price drop in 2000,[1] and for being the CEO of Powa Technologies, where he raised in excess of $200 million of funding[2] before leading it into administration within 30 months in early 2016.[3]

I am reporting these violations. --Techtrek (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@TechTrek - - an observation by one of the FT reporters criticised and dismissed by TechTrek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C207:A800:224:1DFF:FE76:EDE6 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The most recent comment posted this morning reference the blogger himself from Alphaville - Kadhim Shubber - who refers to his own blog as 'Alphavile' not the Financial Times or FT Alphaville. Just Aphaville the blog! Is this a joke?

The URL for FTAlphaville is Oh look, a subdomain of the financial times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C207:A800:224:1DFF:FE76:EDE6 (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, earlier on the talk page Ol King Col says 'given what has happened recently, he is probably better known for the collapse of Powa Technologies given it was a unicorn' but again that's nonsense given the subject ran a publicly listed company on NASDAQ and the London Stock Exchange for 8 years, did a reverse acquisition for $460m in 1997. The huge range of institutional investors, debt and equity holders supporting such a large business in the public markets in the UK and US is much more well known than a Startup that failed after 2 years. To characterise Dialog 'best known for leadership of Dialog and its subsequent 95% share decline' is clearly defamatory.

If we are being even balanced, then the entry 'In February, 2016, the FT reported Powa technologies had missed payments to staff and third parties,[29] two years after raising $175m investment, despite the investment, Powa was said to still be 'pre-revenue'. On 19 February 2016, Powa Technologies went into administration and appointed Deloitte as administrators.[3]
  • ..should be re-written to say 'In February, 2016, the FT reported Powa technologies had missed payments to staff and third parties,[29]. On 19 February 2016, Powa Technologies appointed Deloitte as administrators.[3]'
This entry should be removed After the collapse of Powa Technologies a series of articles by The Financial Times and the BBC called into question several claims that had been made by Dan Wagner during his tenure as CEO. Powa's self-proclaimed 2014 valuation of $2.6 billion was investigated and the Financial Times concluded that £75 million was a more accurate figure.[2] A "10-year strategic alliance with ‘limitless’ potential” deal with China UnionPay that Wagner described in a quote to the BBC as “Why did China UnionPay decide to partner with a little British technology company? We’ve trumped ApplePay and the rest of the world here.” was found to be nothing of the kind[30][31] and most of the partners that Wagner claimed had signed deals with Powa were found to be just Letters of Intent at best.[31][32]

the 'series of articles by the Financial Times' was not at all. indeed it was a blog called Alphaville and not the Financial Times at all. all should go because all speculation--Techtrek (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

That's inaccurate and you know it. Here is one such article from the FT If you look at the authors, one of them is Kadhim Shubber, the same Kadhim Shubber from the tweet above. I've provided this once, but if your missed it try this, (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Tweets are not WP:RS. Tweets and blogs do not make up a collection of credible sources to be used in WP:BLP articles. Alphaville is a subdomain of FT, a subdomain for their blogs ! As I said, even blogs of news websites do not go through the same editorial checks as their main news articles on their root domain. Blogs do not automatically get more credibility because the blogger posted the blog on a news blog. We have to differentiate between blogs and actual news. --Techtrek (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
A tweet hasn't been used as a source for the article. The tweet you refer to is from an FT journalist, see co-authored ft article above, commenting on your attempts to discredit FT Alphaville. The point was the author of the FT alphaville material is an FT journalist. Also, as no legal action was taken against any of the sourced material (FT, BBC, Guardian, Business Insider, etc - you really should try googling your..I mean, Dan Wagner Powa Technologies for a wealth of material) suggests to me it is not factually inaccurate given that some of the articles are based on the administrators report produced by deloite. Y2A02:C7F:C207:A800:D198:DC3F:2310:FFC2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Your comment that "suggests to me it is not factually inaccurate" is your personal analysis. Why are you proposing your personal judgement of sources to be a part of this wikipedia article? WP:SYNTH is not allowed on wikipedia. --Techtrek (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

As agreed above, I am not editing the article myself and I will use the edit request template to ask more experienced and neutral users to address WP:BLP issues I raised in my comments above dated 06:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC), 06:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC) and 08:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC). The sources are blogs or other non reliable sources, the individual is being written as "best known" for things that do not have supportive reliable sources. The statements I quoted in italics need to be changed. as suggested in my comments. --Techtrek (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You have already requested help and have been answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C207:A800:585:A65D:F204:CD72 (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Here via the BLPN. Techtrek is not making a reasonable case. The FT news blogs are reliable and plenty of the coverage was in the FT itself. On one issue objected to, the "letters of intent", this is well covered in other available reliable sources, e.g.;;;; The BBC article is very negative about Techtrek and his client: "Behind the scenes, the Powa team that had negotiated the deal was shocked - they had told Mr Wagner not to oversell the deal but he had gone off script. "He just shot his mouth off," one told me. "The Chinese were furious, they don't like that kind of boasting." What's more, any deal had been done with an intermediary, not China UnionPay, whose lawyers sent a "cease and desist" letter ordering Powa to shut up. "As matter of fact," says the letter, "our company has not yet established any business relationship with your company". Powa's PR agency called the BBC asking us to remove Mr Wagner's quote from our article." The negative reporting of Wagner's time at Powa is not unique - journalists negatively covered Venda, though one was sued by them: Now they are trying to whitewash here and we should have none of it. This biased editing has itself become the story: Techtrek - stop this futile effort or I predict you will be banned for disruption. Fences&Windows 09:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
And 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). Fences&Windows 09:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, "Powa was founded in 2007 by Dan Wagner, who was best known as the man behind MAID, later renamed Dialog, which he sold to Reuters for $500m shortly before the dot-com crash in 2000." (City A.M., Feb 16.) A mention of Dialog and its crash as what he is best known for in the lead is hardly "defamatory". User:Techtrek, as you are a representative of the subject, if you continue to makes claims that other editors are being "defamatory" when adding material well-supported by reliable sources I will open a discussion at AN/I to request you be banned for legal threats. Fences&Windows 10:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Before I reply to the whole of your message, I want to let you know that I have not made any legal threats and do not intend to make any threats whatsoever other than reporting to a wikipedia adminstrator when I see something out of order so that they can take action within wikipedia policies. The use of word defamatory is in the same meaning as mentioned in the wikipedia policies of WP:BLP. In no circumstance should my use of wikipedia policy be misinterpreted as intention to threaten legal action. The messages by the IP editor are about legal action taken in the sources. I have not even commented on that. --Techtrek (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not proposing to whitewash the article. I am proposing to follow wikipedia policies strictly as it is required for WP:BLP. Even the user who is opposing me has agreed that some of the statements in article were not within permissible things on wikipedia. You can see these examples [8] [9]. I am discussing this to bring further attention to issues in this article. You can not blanket reject problems with such statements. --Techtrek (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Marked the edit request as declined as this discussion does not appear to have reached a consensus. Altamel (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Late November/early December edits[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

A number of changes have drastically altered the article without prior conversation on this talk page. What is more, it again reads like a pr piece, with some potentially libelous content regarding Ben White. Given the previous edit wars and the number of edits potentially requiring reversion, can an experienced editor look at the page and make changes if necessary. (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Some articles omitted — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted some of the recent changes, but there apparently also were attempts to smear Wagner. I tried to fix some of those, too. Huon (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
To give some more detail:
  • 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.
  • "In November 2016, NetSuite was sold to Oracle ..." - true and referenced, but unless the sources mention Wagner, it's not relevant to him. The end of that paragraph, "Dan Wagner was a major shareholder in NetSuite..." is unreferenced. See WP:SYN.
  • Regarding the "China deal", "was alleged to have been overstated" is a misrepresentation when the alleged partner sends cease-and-desist letters asserting that there are no business relations.
  • Business Insider also confirmed that it had seen the China Union Pay agreement and that "the joint-venture was contracted to roll out Powa's technology to 100,000 merchants by June 2016 in the Guangzhou region." - Misrepresentation of the source. Here's what BI says: "BI has seen a copy of the agreement between Powa and CN2Pay, Powa's joint venture partner, that suggests the joint-venture was contracted to roll out Powa's technology to 100,000 merchants by June 2016 in the Guangzhou region. Powa could even pull out of the deal if this commitment was not met." So it's not actually a "China Union Pay" agreement but a "CN2Pay" agrreement, and BI is careful to only say it "suggests" the contract. BI has not "confirmed that the joint-venture was contracted".
  • "... which would have made PowaTag one of the worlds most important technologies in mobile payments" - ridiculous misrepresentation of the source. Here's what BI says: "However, even if the deal was real, it's by no means certain that Powa would have been a success in China."
I think this suffices to show that the edits I reverted were not an improvement. Huon (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
another article for consideration regarding the investigation of a transfer of money from powa to another company owned by Wagner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017 Edits[edit]

It appears User:Startupnation and User: Bobfelicce82 have been re-writing this article in the last 24 hours without any consultation on here / the talk page. User:Startupnation has a warning on their talk page from last summer from a senior editor for edits that - appeared to have a non-nuetral point of view. Bobfelicce82 has been identified as having an un-declared connection with the subject, Dan Wagner.

Most of the amends they have made are contrary to content discussed on this talk page - Example - the removal of reference to Dialog from the intro, User:Fences and windows a very senior editor has noted above "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 ask User:Startupnation and User: Bobfelicce82 to please advise their reasons for the changes, before I or someone else reverts them, and raises concerns about attempts to compromise Wikipedia guidelines Ol king col (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2017

Ol king col, please raise this at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Fences&Windows 14:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted some of the changes mentioned above. Also added the subject's verified twitter account. (talk)
More edits/reverts have taken place without prior discussion mainly around what the subject is best known for. Given that various senior editors have looked at and improved the quality and balance of this piece over the last year, I'm inclined to stick with the version from User:Fences and windows. (talk)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.
requesting editor help given minor edit war has broken out.
The page has been protected for a while. This should be resolved via discussion, or I foresee blocks. Huon (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User: IS user:Ol King Col and has been Vandalising this page for years. Please block and revert edots — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Protected edit request on 12 January 2017[edit]

A user (Ol King Col) has been targeting this page for over two years under various anonymous IP addresses since a previous editor blocked him. He is the user who has reversed the recent edits that are representative of the subject. In particular, the intro to the page is highlighting the share price decline that was suffered by all tech companies in the dot com bust and isn't unique to this particular subject or one of the subjects many companies (as clearly comes out of the main body text). Subject has created six companies of which two became world leaders in their field with a separate entity going into administration. The intro as edited by Ol King Col or IP or represents a very different picture deliberately to vandalize or discredit subject. Same user removes any press articles to support the achievements and injects alternative articles that are less flattering. All public figures have both types of coverage but the intro to this page is unrepresentative of the subject's achievements. Please review content of page and some of the recently reversed edits and references and determine for yourself. (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

See also 'Admin help required, user King col editing with IP addresses acting more than one people' above... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want to accuse another editor of sockpuppetry, WP:SPI is the appropriate venue. Other than that, I see no specific requests for changes and no reliable sources to back up the assertions. The anonymous IP editors which you (another anonymous IP editor) accuse of misconduct have provided specific rationales why their version of the content agrees with the references. You haven't. Huon (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Can someone with editor rights PLEASE stop user Ol King Col from Vandalising this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you try and engage the other editors on this page as you've been repeatedly asked to do? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yet again, another edit war has broken out. The only engagement from is to accuse Ol King Col of vandalism. Please can and admin assist? (talk)

User: is a serial vandal of this page using multie guises including User:Ol King Col and has continually tried to undermine the subject of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:10, January 15, 2017 (UTC)

Getting annoyed with the false accusations that I am operating some shady behaviour, IP is nothing to do with me, I have only edited under my own username. Additionally, your definition of vandalism is curious. Today all I have done is reverted an amend that was made removing reference from the intro to Mr Wagners former company Dialog, a reference that has been agreed on here with multiple senior editors over the last couple of years. Ol king col (talk)19:33, 15 January 2017
That is totally untrue. User: is the same as User:Ol King Col who has repeatedly vandalised this page because of his own grievances and vendetta against Dan Wagner for removing him from a development role where he was militant, aggressive and abusive to other staff members. He has held this vendetta since his removal from the company and it appears blames Mr Wagner for losing his job and not having been able to secure employment since. This sort of vindictiveness has no place in Wikipedia. If you go back to 2014 you will find the commencement of these prejudicial edits which are not factual just because they have been inserted multiple times for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:42, January 15, 2017 (UTC)
All that diatribe has accomplished is showing yourself to have an undeclared interest in the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I categorically deny being User: Ol king col. If you want to continue throwing around baseless accusations, please provide evidence rather than unsubstantiated claims. If we look at the various interventions by admins, we can see a number of users have been blocked or reprimanded for 'air brushing' the article and turning it into a pr piece. That shows an orchestrated effort. An article was written for Business Insider illustrating as much, (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I have raised a COI case against User talk:, (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Note I have removed that post from WP:COIN because you attempted to out another editor. Let's focus on the content, rather than who anyone else might be, or why they might be here. SmartSE (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, apologies. (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please CheckUser User:Ol King Col to prove he is the vandal mentioned on this talk page and for using multiple accounts to vandalise Dan Wagner — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:47, January 15, 2017 (UTC)

For the last time, the venue to raise accusations of abuse of multiple accounts (or of IPs in addition to an account) is WP:SPI, not this talk page. Actual evidence in the form of diffs would also be nice for accusations of either sockpuppetry or vandalism (WP:AN/I would be a good place to discuss the latter). This page is a venue to discuss the improvement of the article, and I don't see any of that here from either side. Huon (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to discuss one of the changes which was contentious, the sale by Thomson Reuters IP and science business to Baring Private Equity Asia last year, I argued that this does not belong on the subject articles as a) it makes no reference to MAID/Dialog, b) it belongs on the company page as the subject was not involved in the deal? The same can be said for the Venda section which states "Venda was subsequently sold on to Oracle in November 2016 as part of Netsuite in a $9.3 billion deal.". Again, I would argue the subject had sold the Venda to Netsuite in 2014 and wasn't involved in the deal, and the reference makes no mention of Venda therefore this does not belong in the article, rather should be on the Netsuite company page. Can you advise SmartSE or any other editor?

Also submitted for consideration, As the Aigua Media section makes mention of Shiny Media. (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

In the Venda section it states "Venda today runs many of the largest UK and international retail e-commerce sites and was sold in July 2014 to US leading cloud computing software company NetSuite". The supplied ref says ″Venda’s e-commerce platform, Venda Convergent Commerce, is used by 12 e-retailers in Internet Retailer’s 2014 Europe 500, including department store chain Debenhams plc, No. 46; home improvement e-retailer Wickes, No. 74; and fashion and home goods retailer Laura Ashley Ltd., No. 250. Venda says nearly 100 retailers and manufacturers use its services.". The ref does not reflect the article. Can I suggest the removal of "Venda today runs many of the largest UK and international retail e-commerce sites" or find a ref which backs this claim? (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed this. Mainly because the reference doesn't mention Wagner and that is what we should be focussing on here. SmartSE (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like the group to consider for addition to the article, seems to be a good rebuttal to content in the last paragraph of the Powa Technologies section which currently states "Powa's self-proclaimed 2014 valuation of $2.6 billion was investigated and FT Alphaville concluded that £75 million was a more accurate figure.[2] Shortly before the collapse, Goldman Sachs had valued the business at $18 billion.[32][33] " Ol king col (talk) 20:01 16 January 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ol king col: Can you explain more what you mean? That content seems more suited to Powa Technologies than here. I'm inclined to remove more information unless Wagner's role is explicitly discussed by the sources. SmartSE (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

June 2017[edit]

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. (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[edit]

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? (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is the same picture used on the subject's blog, (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


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[edit]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This was all I could find relating to court action between the subject and Ben White,, dated 1/11/16 (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 (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. (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. (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, & 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, (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. (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'. (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. (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, another edit war has broken out on the article, and there is little attempt to resolve this with other editors on this page. (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 (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 (talkcontribs) 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 [10] to the Venda section uses the phrase 'European market leader', which is also used by User: A remarkably similar POV, or Is the a case of sockpuppertry? (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. (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. (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: 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. (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) (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[edit]

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


The sale figure of Dialog has been quoted as being worth $500m but the FT state it was $275m, 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), (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, Here's an article form the independent, although it's pre-sale. Another stating the sale was $275m, (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, Given the inconsistencies across the sources, I propose it is removed from the article. (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The sources used for the MAID/Dialog sale in the intro aren't well sources. Ref 4,, makes a passing mention of the sale, absent of date and price. Ref 3,, contradicts the ft article above. FT vs 'London Loves Business' (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


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, & 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: 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 (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Asked for a third opinion as changes are being reverted without discussion. (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


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, (, does not say the subject is the 'founder of British eCommerce'. Ref 1,, 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. (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 and here 新的移動電子商務技術 進入台灣市場-政治-HiNet新聞 and here 大成報 Great News - 政治經濟 and here PChome 新聞 and here 新的移動電子商務技術進入台灣市場 蕃新聞 and here 勁報 Power News - 政治經濟 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 and the Observer said the same thing here There are many other references to the subject's influence on eCommerce both in the UK and globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 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. (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 (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,,,, (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 (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC) (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. (talk) 21:19, 5 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! (talk) 09:44, 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 (talkcontribs) 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. (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: has provided several sources, and I assume that Techtrek is supporting this view. But I also agree with User talk: 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)

Legal action against Wellington Management & Ben White[edit]

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,, claims the case has been issued at the court. (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 (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. (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? (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC) (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. (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Rfc about Edits for discussion[edit]

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 (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. (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Should the price of the Dialog sale be removed given conflicting reports?[edit]
  • 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. (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
But there are conflicting reports as highlighted in the discussion here — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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[edit]
Should the subject's resignation from board of directors of Venda, as part of sale to Netsuite, be included?[edit]
  • Support, as relevant to the subject. Ol king col (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:V and WP:COMMONSENSE: No, when a company is sold, all directors resign from the sold entity. this is always the case. adding a comment that the subject resigned is trying to infer he was removed which is misleading. The link is broken also. (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No validity, and as a statement shows he has taken an action, although it is the normal course, when a company is sold. That statement is puffery. scope_creep (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
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[edit]
Should the statement 'Netsuite a division of Oracle' be included?[edit]
  • 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. (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No relevance to biography, as such it is puffery and is classed as hard advertising, and violates WP:ADVERTISING. scope_creep (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion[edit]
  • previous discussion Talk:Dan_Wagner#Venda (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • From the subject's new venture website,, "Dan then developed Venda – the first provider of on-demand enterprise eCommerce, counts Tesco, Laura Ashley, Neiman Marcus, Lands End, Under Armor and TJX Companies among its clients before the company was sold in 2014 to NetSuite a subsidiary of Oracle Corporation." - This is the only other place I've seen the sale of Venda to Netsuite, make a point of mentioning Oracle, despite Netsuite not being owned by Oracle at the time of the sale. (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Should the price of the Venda sale to Netsuite be included?[edit]
  • 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)
  • 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. (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[edit]
Should the statement 'who has been called 'the founder of British eCommerce' be removed from the intro?[edit]
  • 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 (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the removal. Complete nonsense, purely subjective statement, which can't be proved. scope_creep (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
User has been requested to undergo disclosure per WP:PAID. scope_creep (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion[edit]
Should the statement 'who has been called 'the founder of British eCommerce' be included elsewhere in the article?[edit]
  • 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? (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.

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

  • Support Yes, it should given the importance to the subject's contribution to ecommerce in the UK. (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Both of the above are SPA accounts sent to advertise Dan Wagner. scope_creep (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion[edit]
Should the claimed legal action by the subject against Ben White & Wellington be included in the article?[edit]
  • Oppose - No sources, so can't be included Ol king col (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe, it is recorded in multiple press articles. Certainly it should be mentioned if other reports of legal action are mentioned in relation to Powa. See WP:DUE. (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is it a biography article, is it another thing to puff the guy up? scope_creep (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion[edit]


Summoned by botIP, 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. (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The whole article is full of puff and is serious example of WP:PROMO as I have seen. scope_creep (talk) 10:33, 20 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



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

...founder phrase[edit]

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. (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 (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 ( as are at least two of the others that said the same thing. (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. (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

No, I have not edited this article before. Have you? (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, What a coincidence. (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. (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

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

According to, Thompson Holidays UK launched an e-commerce offering three years prior to MAID in 1981. (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Non consensus based update to article[edit]

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

Dear IP, 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 & 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! (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. (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. (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 and The Guardian Newspaper - May 1995 (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, The same link states Gateshead SIS & Tesco provided a b2c e-commerce offering in 1984,, 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 & For the benefit of other editors, I found a convenient cache of newspaper clippings relating to the subject here,⁠ml, 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 and 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 and The Guardian Newspaper - May 1995 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. (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, 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 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. (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 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: 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: 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,_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)