User talk:Zulualpha/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Avoiding conflicts of interest
Welcome to Wikipedia! Your edits at YourTravelBiz.com make it clear that you're making a statement on behalf of the company itself, so if you think that there are factual errors in the article, you should discuss that on the talk page, not in the article, to avoid any conflict of interest. In an era of WikiScanner and wikipedia blogs, companies that rewrite articles can often find themselves the subject of unwanted negative attention, and I would hate for that to happen to your company. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your welcome. I'm not sure where there was anything that stated "our" other than in quotations taken directly from the Facts About YTB home page and press releases, and why you felt it pertinent to delete every edit I made. I am affiliated with the company, but so are thousands of other people. If you would like my reasons for the edits, they are as follows (I will post them on the discussion page as well):
The first section is incorrect in describing the companies. Getting the names of the subsidiaries and what each company does correct is extremely important because incorrect information will only cause further confusion to the people who are considering becoming a part of YTB and those who are already a part of the Company.
Information about the Settled California lawsuit does not belong in this section as there is a designated section for lawsuits. This area is for a brief overview of the company and almost half of the text is about the California lawsuit.
The verbiage in the second section is incorrect, using words like “recruited”. Reps were registered and Booking Engines were sold, no one was recruited. The military recruits.
The following statement is incorrect, and the link does not work to validate it. “The company's business model of selling travel-related websites to work-at-home travel sales agents has been the same since its inception. Growth was slow until 2004, when YTB's creators bought controlling interest in a related company, increased their marketing budget, and aggressively recruited new members with videos of successful salespeople—along with material incentives for their best performers.[10]"
YTB has incorporated a franchise model in California and is changing the way they do business to pave the way for the future inception of a franchise model across the board.
The fact that YTB laid off employees is irrelevant here, as is the part about “considering replacing” the business model with one based around a franchises as those changes are already taking place.
The Awards section was updated to reflect the most recent and true information. Only another award was added, I’m not sure why this was deleted.
The Lawsuits section NEEDS to be updated. Critics have no business here, only lawsuits. The California Attorney General and YTB have settled the lawsuit, so you may not continue to use the present tense of the word “allege”. And the agreement did not put an “end to the $450, $50 per month” Booking Engines. YTB is changing the WAY the Booking Engines are sold, not discontinuing the sale of the product, so this statement is completely incorrect.
Further, the information about Rhode Island is mainly supplied by the sponsor of the MLM petition, "MLM Travel Agents Cheapen Industry". This makes the Rhode Island statement partially incorrect and that statement needs to be amended.
REFERENCES
1. Is a press release from a year ago about a lawsuit that has been settled. 2. Is a news story, written by a California newspaper; this could be considered opinion, especially since this story does not have quotes from both sides. 3. Is an opinion filled news story that has no fact, and no links to support any type of figures. Also, the story is from 2007. 4. The statement from the DSA was released when California announced their lawsuit, which has since been settled. 5. Yet another news story. 6. News story. 7. Another news story. 8. Another news story. 9. SEC filing 10. BROKEN LINK 11. California lawsuit filing (The link for the settlement was not referenced on the page.) 12. BROKEN LINK 13. BROKEN LINK 14. Another news story. 15. BROKEN LINK 16. Not only is this another news story, there are more advertisements on this page than print. 17. Press Release. 18. News story. 19. News story. 20. Press Release. 21. News story. 22. News story. 23. News story. 24. BROKEN LINK. 25. If you read this News Story, it is actually about the investigation of ALL travel agents in Rhode Island, not just YTB. Further, the information is mainly supplied by the sponsor of the MLM petition, "MLM Travel Agents Cheapen Industry". This makes the Rhode Island statement partially incorrect and that statement needs to be amended.
To sum it up, this article seems to focus on the California Lawsuit, which has been settled, and uses newspaper articles for most of their references, many of which are broken links. These articles are completely based on the opinion of the writer and in no way reflect fact. I personally feel that articles on Wikipedia should be based on fact, and if the "critics" would like to speak about opinions or rumors, they can open a header about the opinions and rumors and let them fly there.
For facts, of the 25 reference links on the Wiki article, 19 were news stories, and 5 of those 19 were broken links. Only 6 links referenced press releases or actual filings by a trusted entity. Zulualpha (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Block
Zulualpha (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a multiple account user. OK, so I edit the YTB page and I get blocked! I guess everyone was telling the truth about that. I have sent you my reasons for the edits in my talk page, and in great detail, please unblock me as I have done what you asked so I may change the information as I have described. To be honest, you asked me to list the reasons I felt the items needed to be changed on the talk page, and when I went to do that, I found I was blocked. I mean, I wasn't even given a CHANCE to post any other contributions anywhere else and become an active member of the Wiki society. You can see my account was created the same day I posted my initial edits and I was immediately blocked. I honestly felt that my knowledge of YTB could be put to good use here and help people, maybe end some confusion. Nothing I posted originially was "one sided" or incorrect. I really don't understand why I was blocked unless it is because I am using a public IP address that a few hundred other people use, so that could be a reason according to your "what do I do now" section for the blocking. Please review. Thank you!.
Decline reason:
This edit removed reliably sourced information about the company and resulted in a rather sanitized version. On that basis I cannot trust you to edit neutrally. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
.
You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.
You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, change, or create them.
Editing from Zulualpha (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Redvers for the following reason(s):
Abusing multiple accounts
This block has been set to expire: indefinite.
Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail.
Note: If you have JavaScript enabled, please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.
Thank you. Zulualpha (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Zulualpha (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you for your review. I'm not sure where there was anything that stated "our" other than in quotations taken directly from the Facts About YTB home page and press releases (which would have came directly from YTB and obviously had a reason to state the word “why”), and why you felt it pertinent to delete every edit I made originally. I am affiliated with the company, but so are thousands of other people. If you would like my reasons for the edits, they are as follows:
The first section is incorrect in describing the companies. My edits CLEARLY stated the Company’s names and what they individually do. Getting the names of the subsidiaries and what each company does correct is extremely important because incorrect information will only cause further confusion to the people who are considering becoming a part of YTB and those who are already a part of the Company. Further, allowing incorrect information about the company to remain on Wikipedia when you have been warned multiple times it is there hurts the credibility of this website as well.
Information about the settled California lawsuit does not belong in this first section as there is a designated section for lawsuits. This first area is for a brief overview of the company and its subsidiaries and almost half of the text is about the California lawsuit.
The verbiage used in the second section is incorrect, using words like “recruited”. Reps were registered and Booking Engines were sold, no one was recruited. The military recruits. Using the correct verbiage to describe what the company does is as important as having correct information about the companies on your page. If you were familiar with government laws regulating Multi Level Marketing (MLM) companies and Travel Agencies, you would know that. Also, there are fabrications that have not been proven in court in this section. Further, the link does not work to validate it. “The company's business model of selling travel-related websites to work-at-home travel sales agents has been the same since its inception. Growth was slow until 2004, when YTB's creators bought controlling interest in a related company, increased their marketing budget, and aggressively recruited new members with videos of successful salespeople—along with material incentives for their best performers.[10]" Finally, if this link did work, it would go to a newspaper article, not a valid piece of reference material.
YTB has incorporated a franchise model in California and is changing the way they do business to pave the way for the future inception of a franchise model across the board.
The fact that YTB laid off employees is irrelevant; however, if this fact stays, the figure that it is less than 5% of the staff should be added. The part about “considering replacing” the business model with one based around a franchises" is completely irrevelent as well as those changes are already taking place. This information needs to be removed, and I did that.
The Awards section was updated to reflect the most recent and true information. Only another award was added, I’m not sure why this was deleted. Not only was the award added, but the reference was added as well.
The Lawsuits section NEEDS to be updated. Critics have no business here, only lawsuits. The California Attorney General and YTB have settled the lawsuit, so you may not continue to use the present tense of the word “allege”. And the agreement did not put an “end to the $450, $50 per month” Booking Engines. YTB is changing the WAY the Booking Engines are sold, not discontinuing the sale of the product, so this statement is completely incorrect. http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1737_ytbstipulatedjudgment.pdf
Further, the information about Rhode Island is mainly supplied by the sponsor of the MLM petition, "MLM Travel Agents Cheapen Industry". This makes the Rhode Island statement partially incorrect and that statement needs to be amended. To reiterate, YTB was NOT the only Travel Agent investigated in Rhode Island, EVERY Travel Agent in Rhode Island was investigated. There is a license required for a Travel Agent to operate in the state of Rhode Island.
Finally, your reliably sourced information (please follow the link and read the section on "News Organizations"). I actually went through these “reliably sourced” links and discovered that they are not that “reliably sourced” at all! To be honest, I cannot see how the edit I left about YTB was a “rather sanitized version”. The version left was compliant with the California Settlement Agreement (if one of your moderators would take time to read the agreement you would know that much of the stuff stated in this article is not allowable), it is compliant with FTC and other government rules, regulation, and laws governing MLMs and Travel Agencies (again, if one of your moderators would like to get up to date on those rules and regulations, they would easily see that most of the verbiage used is a huge no-no), AND the other edits were corrected to include TRUE information about the companies. However, I do understand that it is not the job of your moderators to become up to date on every rule, regulation, and law our great government imposes on every business and position within the USA – that is why you allow the “Average Joe” to edit on this site, and that is what I was trying to do here.
I personally think it is more important for example, to get the founder’s names correct than to state that Scott is Coach’s son. Obviously they are related, but that edit was deleted. And the final statement left in the denial was “On that basis I cannot trust you to edit.” On the basis that Wikipedia has been warned several times that this article is filled with opinions and misinformation, how are we (as a society) supposed to trust this site to give the best and truest information? As follows a brief summary of the References.
REFERENCES
1. Is a press release from a year ago about a lawsuit that has been settled.
2. Is a news story, written by a California newspaper; this could be considered opinion, especially since this story does not have quotes from both sides.
3. Is an opinion filled news story that has no fact, and no links to support any type of figures. Also, the story is from 2007.
4. The statement from the DSA was released when California announced their lawsuit, which has since been settled.
5. Yet another news story.
6. News story.
7. Another news story.
8. Another news story.
9. SEC filing
10. BROKEN LINK
11. California lawsuit filing (The link for the settlement was not referenced on the page.)
12. BROKEN LINK
13. BROKEN LINK
14. Another news story.
15. BROKEN LINK
16. Not only is this another news story, there are more advertisements on this page than print.
17. Press Release.
18. News story.
19. News story.
20. Press Release.
21. News story.
22. News story.
23. News story.
24. BROKEN LINK.
25. If you read this News Story, it is actually about the investigation of ALL travel agents in Rhode Island, not just YTB. Further, the information is mainly supplied by the sponsor of the MLM petition, "MLM Travel Agents Cheapen Industry". This makes the Rhode Island statement partially incorrect and that statement needs to be amended.
To sum it up, this article seems to focus on the California Lawsuit, which has been settled, and uses newspaper articles for most of their references, many of which are broken links. These articles are completely based on the opinion of the writer and in no way reflect fact. I personally feel that articles on Wikipedia should be based on fact, and if the "critics" would like to speak about opinions or rumors, they can open a header about the opinions and rumors and let them fly there. The issue with this article is that it has been written by the “critics” and when a link or change is made to reflect correct information, the user gets blocked and “corrections” are made that are worse than the original article.
For facts: of the 25 reference links on the Wiki article, 19 were news stories, and 5 of those 19 were broken links. Only 6 links referenced press releases or actual filings by a trusted entity. According to the denial, I deleted references to "reliable sources"; however, if I did it was a pure and true mistake. I tried to link to reliable and trusted Travel Agent news sources, the YTB company website (that is regulated and MUST contain TRUE content about the Company or the Company could get into trouble), and other press releases. Further, I deleted broken links and other news stories that, as your own Wikipedia page states, weren't material from the high-quality end of the market and were, in fact, mostly opinion pieces.
Thank you for your consideration, again, of my unblocking. I look forward to being able to become an active member on Wikipedia. I enjoy reading and editing and as a college student in the medical field, feel that I can contribute to this board.
Zulualpha (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your request has already been reviewed. Writing a book for an unblock request will not change that. Chillum 21:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- From Zulualpha's request for unblock I would support unblocking due to the fact that he's being upfront about his Conflict of Interest. As long as he continues to abide by WP:COI, I would think that someone who can be rational about why opinion pieces being misused as references should be removed from an article in line with Wikipedia:Reliable sources should be included in the Wikipedia community rather than excluded. -- Netsnipe ► 01:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support. Again, as I said in the unblock chat room, I do apologize if the information left sounded as if it were a promotional piece (one of the admins there pointed that out to me). It seemed that when the links and relating information were removed I could not keep much of the original article and the easiest thing to do was rewrite it. I promise to do a better job at keeping any biased tone out of my editing in any article and I will post any future edits to the YTB article in the talk section for comments before editing on the actual article. I honestly was just trying to use my knowledge of the company to help others and didn't realize I was making such huge errors. I thought I had done the proper research and it seems I missed some things. As for being a "sock puppet", I can only state again, this is a public IP Address and I am not a sock puppet - I have never had an account with Wikipedia before. I was told that it isn't my IP that is the issue, rather my actions (?) when I was chatting as well. I guess that means I really did get blocked for editing that article and making too severe of edits? Well, I found this sentence in your Conflict of Interest section "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline." I would just like to say that I was never talked to. I was told to post the reason for my edits in the talk section and when I went to do that I was banned.
Again, I apologize for any errors on my part and I will do better in the future to correct them.
Thank you again for your consideration. Zulualpha (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Chillum/GPG Public Key One question, did you actually read my "book" before you denied my request? I was asked to give the reasons for my initial edit; my edit is the reason I was blocked, and I fulfilled that request in my second appeal for an unblock. I went through the article and gave all of my reasons, with Wikipedia resources, showing the reason I should not have been blocked. Honestly, I should have been spoken to first if your administrators followed your own rules on here. Someone should have let me know that I changed too much and when doing major edits it is best to post them in the talk section for discussion or approval. I was accused of being a "sock puppet" (it still says that on my user page), but then when I asked about the IP address, the admin I spoke with stated that it was my "actions" not actual evidence that convicted me of that.
I was asked to write that "book" detailing my reasons for the changes, then you deny my request by saying "Writing a book for an unblock request will not change that." This site is a freaking joke! Honestly, I bet you didn't even read my request, or the support from another admin below it. You just looked at the length of my request and denied it. You probably didn't read anything other than the first denial. Am I incorrect? If so, I apologize; however, I don't believe I am.
I'm going to send this up the line. People need to know how their admins are treating people on here. There was no reason to ban me. This site is filled with so many half truths it's not even funny. The sad part is too many people regard Wiki as an actual encyclopedia and take everything on this site as truth, and that's so not the case. Zulualpha (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Zulualpha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
You may find some of the links in our generic welcome message helpful. Cheers.--chaser (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I've started addressing the concerns you presented on the talk page. I'm going to the library this afternoon or within the next few days to pick up a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article that (oddly) is not on Lexis. If I can't find it, I will re-source those statements or remove them. Let me know if I can email you copies of articles. People who are working on the Wikipedia article should have easy access to the offline sources.
As to the dead links, our verifiability policy requires just that sources be published. Requiring they be online would make it impossible to cite most books, for example. Newspapers are generally considered reliable sources, so while the PD is local, I think it's fine. You're welcome to start a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want a second opinion on that. I'm more concerned about getting rid of press release "sources", whether from government entities or the company itself. Two sections of our verifiability policy, WP:SPS, and WP:SELFPUB provide some guidance there.
I think you may have a point about undue weight. I need to review the sources and get back into editing the article. I don't want anyone getting scammed by this company, but I appreciate that people depend on it for their livelihoods. I look forward to working with you to produce an even-handed article.--chaser (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- First off, thank you very much for taking the time to look into this. I've seen the "editing wars" that have gone on with this page, and the end result is the person trying to change links or information gets blocked. You can see that I put up an article about YTB selling REZConnect, yet the user Rees11 said the article said nothing about the two subsidiaries so he wouldn't change it... Of course not. This article is about the sale of REZConnect. Also, as for the price, I'm not aware that anything is a "trick" as far as how much is charged... this is the true price. If you can't tell there is a nickle difference between $49.95 and $50.00 you have other issues - I'm more concerned with information being factual at this point.
- Thank you for the links to the articles as well; I've read a lot of different articles here, but new knowledge is always appreciated. Thanks again!
Zulualpha (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here is what I placed on the YTB page for editing. I have sourced it with a leading travel newspaper, nationwide circulation.
- By following the link above, you will see that the class action lawsuit filed in the State of Illinois has been thrown out and dismissed. Please change the verbiage in the article to reflect this.
- There is one person who is a resident of IL, but this cannot be refiled again without the court's approval, and the judge stated the prior case "establishes the law of the case, from which the court is unlikely to depart absent a showing of compelling reasons to do so."
Zulualpha (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Zulualpha (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Zulualpha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
You may find some of the links in our generic welcome message helpful. Cheers.--chaser (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I've started addressing the concerns you presented on the talk page. I'm going to the library this afternoon or within the next few days to pick up a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article that (oddly) is not on Lexis. If I can't find it, I will re-source those statements or remove them. Let me know if I can email you copies of articles. People who are working on the Wikipedia article should have easy access to the offline sources.
As to the dead links, our verifiability policy requires just that sources be published. Requiring they be online would make it impossible to cite most books, for example. Newspapers are generally considered reliable sources, so while the PD is local, I think it's fine. You're welcome to start a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want a second opinion on that. I'm more concerned about getting rid of press release "sources", whether from government entities or the company itself. Two sections of our verifiability policy, WP:SPS, and WP:SELFPUB provide some guidance there.
I think you may have a point about undue weight. I need to review the sources and get back into editing the article. I don't want anyone getting scammed by this company, but I appreciate that people depend on it for their livelihoods. I look forward to working with you to produce an even-handed article.--chaser (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- First off, thank you very much for taking the time to look into this. I've seen the "editing wars" that have gone on with this page, and the end result is the person trying to change links or information gets blocked. You can see that I put up an article about YTB selling REZConnect, yet the user Rees11 said the article said nothing about the two subsidiaries so he wouldn't change it... Of course not. This article is about the sale of REZConnect. Also, as for the price, I'm not aware that anything is a "trick" as far as how much is charged... this is the true price. If you can't tell there is a nickle difference between $49.95 and $50.00 you have other issues - I'm more concerned with information being factual at this point.
- Thank you for the links to the articles as well; I've read a lot of different articles here, but new knowledge is always appreciated. Thanks again!
Zulualpha (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here is what I placed on the YTB page for editing. I have sourced it with a leading travel newspaper, nationwide circulation.
- By following the link above, you will see that the class action lawsuit filed in the State of Illinois has been thrown out and dismissed. Please change the verbiage in the article to reflect this.
- There is one person who is a resident of IL, but this cannot be refiled again without the court's approval, and the judge stated the prior case "establishes the law of the case, from which the court is unlikely to depart absent a showing of compelling reasons to do so."