Talk:Inventionland

Scam

This page should be deleted. It is self promotion from a firm that is still ripping off gullible users. They are continuing to abuse the system even though they were taken to court and lost.

see this for a current example of complaints and the countered replies of the Davison company. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable, so it stays, whatever your personal view which you have made clear and which also clearly interferes with your editing practices so please be careful to edit fairly. If you think it isn't notable, you can nominate it for deletion. GDallimore (Talk) 23:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First - I have nothing, NOTHING personal against Davison. I wanted to use their services, but then was exposed to their misleading material and contact practices. During research about them I found out of their past and current record, and later received written material from them, although I explicitly told them I do not trust them. The material further proved the point. I decided to write about invention scams, as an invention consultant and inventor, I have some knowledge in the field. Surprisingly, I found that this particular scam was being downplayed, and actually all invention promotion scams (at the time) were being downplayed. As a citizen and inventor, I just could not overlook a write-up about a company that seemed to be deceiving its customers, and after formerly being sued exactly for that. At the time, there was a vote for deleting Davison (or inventionland... there was only one entry moved between the two definitions). I had voted for keeping it, with the notability being their major role as an example scamming company. If I remember correctly, ironically, my vote was instrumental on this.

I'm sure you agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote a deceptive (intentionally or unintended) picture of part of the services proposed by Davison, which, sadly, they continue to present, although they could have used their fantastic and inspiring infrastructure in a truthfully beneficial way. Instead they continue present "false and misleading statements".

The court verdict wrote:

The agency alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements that:

Consumers who bought their invention-promotion services stand a reasonably good chance of realizing financial gain.
Their invention-promotion services helped many of their customers' invention ideas become profitable products.
Their invention-promotion services helped specific inventions become profitable products.
That they have a vast network of corporations with whom they have ongoing relationships and regularly negotiate successful licensing agreements.
That their invention marketing services are necessary for consumers to license their invention ideas.
That they prepare objective and expert analyses of the patentability and marketability of consumers' invention ideas.

These are EXACTLY what the Wikipedia article is now saying about Davison and InventionLand.

SO, WP is being used to deceive inventors.

You are correct that finding more than 100 complaints on a customer complaint website with claimed $180,000 loss of money is private research. Same with reading their website, and showing that they are continuing to state messages that lead the reader to the exact conclusions that the court wrote against. So what can be done? Shouldn't we care about abusing wikipedia? Perhaps use wp:Self-promotion against this article? At least, in the Wikipedia we should make clear all the things the court said that Davison should explicitly declare. And we should not allow any promotion of services the court forbade Davison to represent or mislead to. Do you feel the article as it is now, stands within such a criterion? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm pretty sure you've posted this to the wrong article, but never mind. Second, as an example, neither this article or the other article say ANYWHERE that consumers have a reasonably good chance of realising financial claims, so your complaints about the article seem to be factually incorrect. Third, this article and the other article both discuss the court judgements and say that their services are a typical invention promotion scam, so the complaints against are made clear. Overall, I fail to see what your problem is.

If you can find additional reliable sources discussing the complaints made against davison and delivering an informed opinion on the validity of those complaints, then they can go into the articles, but just quoting complaints and davison's replies to those complaints is of no value to the article. GDallimore (Talk) 16:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this Talk page conversation, I've removed the warnings of the writing as a "advertisement" and "notability" questions. Christi212Cassidy (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Inventionland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120116235449/http://itsrealitytv.com/tag/inventionland/ to http://itsrealitytv.com/tag/inventionland/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Inventionland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]