Talk:TBI Solicitors

Hang on because this is not promotion - more that this firm is now becoming notorious and has been in the House of Lords and on TV for its practices.

Just to clarify, the original issue was not that the article was promoting the firm, but that it was promoting a cause. More importantly, it attacked its subject without providing any evidence for its claims (see CSD G10, and WP:NPOV). Hopefully, neither of those issues are present in the current version of the article. Unfortunately, notability is a bit borderline. I was surprised how difficult it was to find anything on a firm of this size and longevity. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some information on their attempted censorship of this article could be added EvilHom3r (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those just coming in from torrentfreak.com, here is the history of deletions/edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.153.132.204

(The "diff" links are the best way to see what was done)

And here is the talk page where the user was warned not to do that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.153.132.204

BTW, it is not unusual for someone with an axe to grind to attempt to edit Wikipedia so as to make themselves look better. As long as they take the hint and stop doing that when their changes are reverted and they are warned, no further sanctions are needed. 75.84.237.88 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@75.84.237.88 - that doesn't make it acceptable. 75.72.168.44 (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of Wikipedia article[edit]

I've just removed this section from the article, as the incident is not notable enough to warrant inclusion. If and when a source that qualifies as a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy comments on this incident, please feel free to re-add this information and cite that source. Torrentfreak doesn't qualify. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse-me Rlandmann, if TorrentFreak have an IP (internet protocol) confirmation of the vandalism from TBI how it could not be reliable? Public should know about a Law firm that vandalises a Wikipedia article. This is anti-ethical and goes against the very reason that the laws exists. Fairness should prevail here and TBI should be exposed. Those who don't know what we are talking about, check it out: TF Article about TBI vandalism here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.149.128 (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlandmann, normally I'd agree however it's trivial to verify the claims and accuracy of the article. A quick whois on the ip reveals that the block is assigned to TBI, and Special:Contributions/195.153.132.204 shows the attempted censorship/vandalism. I'm not so sure about including the attempts of any company to remove information from an article when it's a one-time thing. Persistent edit warring might be a different matter. Credible, yes. Notable, not really. For now I think it should remain on the talk page. --Nick Wilson (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Wilson, Rlandmann I've put an entrace of what happend on the page. As Nick says maybe it's resonable to keep the discussion here. I think the subject is very relevant so I leave up to you guys keep or not the content there, although I'd keep. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.179.26 (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think it belongs on the article page; it was a single occurrence, and it's not absolutely certain that the edit was made by someone employed by TBI. Therefor I'm going to remove it as per not being notable - if future edits are made to remove the content about mass-litigation (without any basis), I'd be less adversed to it. --Nick Wilson (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I won't press the matter if someone else feels it is appropriate; I'm not particularly fond of the tactics being used by this company to begin with. --Nick Wilson (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. What about a link to the TorrentFreak article under References? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.190.32 (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is appropriate. Though you may want to bring it up at the village pump or other relevant discussion areas in this case. I also strongly suggest that the IP in question and its edits be watched. --Koolabsol (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a single edit to a Wikipedia article, and the person editing from the IP address made no attempt to remove the material again after I reverted them. As far as I can tell, no reliable sources (in the Wikipedia sense of the term) have mentioned this incident, so adding it here would be both original research and undue weight. On the other hand, if you're aware of a published source that mentions the incident, then by all means let us know. (And yes, I'm watching the IP). Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

too promotional at start f article?[edit]

The firm is apparantly only notable because of the comments of Lord Clement Jones. But this is only mentioned halfway down the page. The first large section feels entirely promotional. What kind of thing could be done to sort that out? Perhaps add a new short lead with brief description of firm and of trouble with file-sharing cases, then the rest of the article as it is now, but with some gentler wording in the existing first section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.53.29 (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]