User talk:Elvey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Upfront Rewards

Zanimum deleted this page I created, claiming it was complete slander. The censorship disgusts me and his claim is factually challenged, and appears to be dishonest. The article included several references (I don't have the exact number... Zanimum DELETED THEM) What was libelous, Zanimum? Every statement I put in there was VERIFIABLE. By Zanimum's logic, calling Hitler a Nazi is libelous too. (Hello, Godwin!) -Elvey 07:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC) in response to:

This article was purely beyond libel. If I were of a better mind, I'd ban you for that thoroughly disgusting article. -- Zanimum 16:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Most Wikipedia admins seem to regularly delete pages when there's a strongly worded or legal complaint about them and they're disparaging, for example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OITC_fraud (I grabbed and kept a copy from google's archive, and it's a well-documented article replete with lots of references, and I checked a couple, and they were legit.) It's a pity. Also, note that this page has been the subject of policy violations; content from it was deleted along with partial history. I'm pissed off and disappointed in Wikipedia adminship. I won't be contributing as much as a result.  :(

Thanks for letting me know about this. Actually, I think the deletion decision was correct (the one following the deletion review, anyway); the article did have major problems, as did the original OITC fraud article. The issue isn't the referencing, it's the tone of the article, which was extremely non-neutral: e.g. "scandal-ridden", "this scam", "the bank is an ethics-free zone, and scandalous" etc etc. The article was a very long way from meeting the neutral point of view standard - it's clearly polemical ratherthan neutral. Describing it as libelous is accurate, in my view, as the whole tone is very accusatory.

Having said that, the way to deal with it is the same way I rescued the OITC article. Make it a dispassionate review of what the sources say, use neutral language, ensure that you use reliable sources and reference every potentially contentious point. It's not necessarily a very easy thing to do if you feel strongly about it (since I'd never heard of the OITC before I rewrote that article, I had the advantage of being genuinely neutral about it). Feel free to use the OITC article as a template: start with a description of the subject, explain where, when and how it operates, then document the controversy. -- ChrisO 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[Added] I'm not sure that the UR scheme is really notable enough for its own article. Why not start an article on Universal Savings Bank and add the UR stuff as a subsection? -- ChrisO 07:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BlueHippo Funding

I NPOV'ified the article, mostly. Where are you getting the $2148 figure though? According to the article linked, the price is more like $1970. It would be great if you could provide a source to back up the $2148 calculation, as well as the contents of the commercials - we need sources to verify several things in the article. Jumbo Snails 00:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Look in the chart now in the article; the 2148 is fully documented. You deleted a section that's there to, as my edit summary says: Alternatives: conform to google metadata. Are you a posse? Don't use 'we' unless you are a royal, or wewill:) Gret the point? It's not the case that the content of the ads is being disputed or is in question at all, AFAICT.