User talk:AmPat

Reunion.com

AmPat - Any investment in a company absolutely relates to ownership - I have added more detail to help clarify this although I couldn't find an article that outlines the stake that Oak received for its $25 Million investment - I'll keep looking. Just because news about a company is good news doesn't mean it's advertising. I've provided relevant information to explain the ownership of the company and who is involved, and provided solid references.

I removed the external link to BBB again... as stated in Wikipedia:External links "Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked in a references section, not an external links section" whereas links to the official website of an Internet company should be in the External Links area.

Also, please use Talk for comments, not User pages. Hawkmc April 18, 2007

Hawkmc - You're correct (although I don't know what you think I did "again", in that the LABBB calls this 'marketing method' rather than strategy. I agree, it is indeed questionable, so I placed it in the questionable business practices section.

AmPat - You did it again. You added a section on Marketing Strategy had nothing to do with Marketing Strategy, and you already talked about that issue in the other section you added about questionable business practices, which is the more appropriate place for it. I added info about how the site desribes the "Who's Searching for You?" feature instead of referring to how the BBB describes how the site describes it, so the reader can decide for him/herself if it is misleading. Also added information about a recent investment in the company and updated the member base info.Hawkmc April 16, 2007.

Hawkmc - I have found several articles in wikipedia with which I disagreed, but the one on Reunion.com is so far from reality that I simply had to contribute to it in an attempt to correct the article that was there at the time, virtually all of which was information from Reunion.com's own website. Yes, I have been burned by them as have many people due to their false advertising, unauthorized credit card charges, refusals to honor their own agreements, and company policy of no refunds under any circumstances. Although the ripoff report is not recognized by you, it appears to me to be a list of primary sources, since each complaint is written by the customer involved. Nevertheless, I will not list it again, but will stick to the LABBB, which is a reliable source by anyones estimation and has sufficient negative information for the purpose of giving a more accurate picture of this company. I have also corrected the language in the opening paragraph to accurately reflect what the source material actually said; the claims about membership numbers were made by Reunion.com alone, and have been verified by no one. --Terry 11:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AmPat - It's clear that you have had a personal issue with Reunion.com since it is the only article where you have contributed. As you said, Wikipedia is not for advertising, but it's also not for pushing personal agendas. I have kept removing Ripoff report as a reference and will continue to do so as it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for "Reliable Sources" - in fact, it is the very definition of a "Questionable Source", as it does no fact checking and does not have any editorial oversight - see Wikipedia:Attribution. If you take a look at their site, they also slam the BBB, which is what you're using as your other reference. Hawkmc April 10, 2007.

Integrate your information about Reunion.com into the article in an encyclopedic fashion. See for example the classmates.com article, which has a "controversial business practices" section. You could do something similar, just make sure everything is fully documented per policies like WP:A. —Kenyon (t·c) 04:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did it again. See WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:DISRUPT. Try to contribute to Wikipedia a little more constructively. —Kenyon (t·c) 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reunion.com didn't write the article, people like you and me did. Yes, blatant advertisements are against Wikipedia policy: see WP:NOT#SOAP like I said before. However, I don't think the current version of the article is advertising. If you think some parts are advertisements, then fix those parts. Rewrite parts of the article from a neutral point of view, if you want. I do think the article could use some work, such as replacing those bulleted lists with paragraphed writing. But like I said, include your information in an encyclopedic fashion. See any article on any big company to get an idea of how to do that. You seem to have some good sources, you just need to put them into the article properly. Replacing the entire article with a blurb of your opinions is not helpful. Browse around the help area a little bit to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia. —Kenyon (t·c) 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]