Talk:LegalShield/Archives/2012

Information website
I just added a link to a website with information pertaining to potential PPL associates. http://www.mediamoogle.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscasarez (talk • contribs) 23:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Untitled
I am wanting to create this article so that I can keep it up-to-date with information related the to the company/industry. There is an article called "Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.", however, the full name is "Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. & Subsidiaries" (What I named the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanhcrow (talk • contribs) — Devanhcrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

News section
Having a copy+paste of links to their press releases is a bit tiresome, why not just link to their official site and call it a day. If there's newsworthy articles about the company in other sources (see WP:RS) by all means use them instead. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Oscarthecat. I like your suggestion! Good Idea. I'm not sure why I didn't think of that. Good job. Devan Hamlin Crow 20:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanhcrow (talk • contribs)

Why I want to keep this article
I believe my article should be kept because I am dedicated to keeping it up-to-date. Many pages that I have found are out of date and someone should update them. I have created links for each advisor counsel member (I also created three definition pages for three of these people). I have added a link for the Official Press Release website for this company. I am an investor in both PPL and it's parner, Kroll, Inc. If you think that my article should be deleted, please explain why and please be specific with specific changes that you want/need to see to keep it. Thanks again. Devan Hamlin Crow 21:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi - please take a look at WP:CORP and WP:NOTABLE and WP:COI. --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The main problem is that it's blatantly promotional: light on basic facts, heavy on marketing of the company and its products. These things are red flags to experienced Wikipedians, because we spend so much time removing content placed for advertising reasons by people who believe Wikipedia is their free web-host. A proper treatment of this subject would be called "Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc" and would begin by giving the basic facts ("Pre-Paid Legal Services Inc. is an American insurance sales company").  It would contain no biographical detail about the founders or directors (if they're notable, they should have separate articles, otherwise just cut out everything about them except their names).  It certainly should not contain that quote from some bigwig within the company to tell us why the advisory council's so wonderful.  It should contain about a tenth the present number of adjectives, and less than half the present amount of jargon. In fact, my opinion is that it would be easier to delete this material and start again than to modify it so it's encyclopaedic.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of a "Featured article" (i.e. an article reviewed by other Wikipedians as top-quality) which concerns a company: BAE Systems. Against my better judgment, I've begun the rewriting process for you.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Products
I've removed this section for now it just isn't encyclopaedic. If anyone wants to have ago at editing it, go ahead.  Teapot  george Talk  14:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal Plans

Plans provide preventive legal services, which include telephone consultation on unlimited personal legal issues, document and contract review, and will preparation (with yearly updates). The Standard Legal Plan also provides motor vehicle services, trial defense, IRS audit assistance, and a 25% preferred member discount on any other legal issue. The exact coverages vary from state to state (or province to province) depending on local laws, and fees are adjusted according to the services provided in each state. The company offers several riders which can be added to the basic plan for an additional fee, including the Legal Shield, which provides 24-hour access to an attorney in the event the member is detained or arrested, is seriously injured in an automobile accident, is served with a warrant, or if authorities attempt to remove the member's child(ren) from their custody; and the Home Based Business Rider, which provides services such as debt collection letters and an account with GoSmallBiz.com, a service designed to help expand, manage, and grow the client's own business.

Identity Theft Shield

In 2003, Pre-Paid Legal entered into a joint marketing agreement with risk-consulting company Kroll, Inc., to market Kroll's Identity Theft Shield to consumers. Kroll had previously only developed products for large corporations, and did not have a sales force geared towards individuals. The Identity Theft Shield provides a credit report upon enrollment; thereafter, the member's credit report is monitored on a daily basis, with activity notices being sent to the member either by email, postal mail, or phone. In the event an identity theft occurs while the member is enrolled, Kroll provides identity restoration service via a limited power of attorney. The Identity Theft Shield may be purchased alongside a legal plan, or as a standalone product. Unlike the legal plans, which require associates to hold insurance licenses in some states, the Identity Theft Shield is considered a service product in all states and provinces in which they are offered. For this reason, new associates operating in a so-called "license state" may sell only the Identity Theft Shield until they obtain their license from the state's Department of Insurance.

News article deletion
I am removing the news article URL in the news section as 'Pre-Paid Legal Services' is not mentioned in the news article, nor does the article have any information related to the organization. 174.19.196.136 (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon edits
A number of edits have been made by an anon editor. I have changed some, removed some, and some I did not see as problematic. Some of the anon edits restored information that seems appropriate for inclusion (company history).

Please leave the article warning flags in until there is wp:consensus here on the talk page to remove them.- Sinneed  08:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words?
I was looking at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pre-Paid_Legal_Services&action=historysubmit&diff=402023931&oldid=398587247

And noticed it changed the link from "Multi Level Marketing" to the text "direct commission based marketing plan" (no link). I can't find an article about "direct commission.. " marketining, the closest is Direct_selling which is considering for merging with the MLM article. Considering the CBC linked article calls it a MLM, I'm changing it back. I'd encourage the original editor to find an article or webpage about "Direct commission based marketing"; a source to corroborate that PPL uses that type of marketing strategy; and finally it would be nice if (s)he could argue that the new term *better* describes PPL's marketing than MLM.

That particular edit appears (in my opinion) to intentionally present the subject in a positive light, much like a web page or press release. I'm concerned the numerous edits by the user have a similar slant; perhaps they should all be reviewed, especially any time information or links are removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffO (talk • contribs) 19:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, PPL's affiliates keep editing this article in blatant violation of WP:COI, WP:SPAM and other policies and guidelines, to make it more flattering and to use it as a promotional vehicle instead of a neutral article. MLM is MLM is MLM. We have an article on that.  Misleading euphemisms for it should be replaced with the standard, popular term and the link to the article on it.  Just watch the article, and keep editing it back into shape. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Logo
I noticed that an anonymous IP editor changed the link in the infobox for the company logo to point to a nonexistent target with the new company name. Since the editor did not also upload a file, I reverted that change, as I figure it's better to have the previous logo than redlink text in the infobox. If someone wants to upload a copy of the new logo, this link, which I found directly linked from the external link about the name change, has an official, low-res version of the new logo.  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 15:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I pulled the logo from the company's main website and placed it in the article. Let me know if it resolves the situations here so the old non-free image can be deleted (per licensing policy). DMacks (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is sufficient to be able to delete the old logo file, but this one does look a little blurry in the article. I think it has to do with transparency in the gif file. Have you tried the one at the link I provided?  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 17:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that .gif looks like it was tailored to be used on a gray background. I avoided the one you mentioned because it was from a third-party site, opting instead to pull the one from one of the company's own websites. If we're going to be using a non-free image to represent an entity, better to use one with as direct a provenance to that entity I think--you tagged the new .jpg as being part of their published presskit for use in press, but I only see evidence that someone else has used it in this manner (not that they release that file in particular for general use in this manner), so it's no freer than normal non-free images. They now have a better one themselves, a .png (generally preferred to .png) with less pixelated/cleaner margins (and good transparency usage): File:LegalShield logo.png. DMacks (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (multiple-edit conflict, gah!) I managed to upload the smaller logo from the name change press release, and I figured out that the reason for the blurry look of the other one is because it was designed to be placed on a blue page background with its transparency. Since this image is a jpg with a white background it looks much better, even though it is lower-resolution. Can you check that I have correctly filled out all of the rationale, etc. on the file page?
 * While that one is a third-party site, it is also a press-release, which is why I was inclined to use it. D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 17:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure the virtualpressoffice.com site is actually an official channel for companies to release their PRs. Am I mistaken?  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 18:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * VPR is definitely for PR agents to get the word out, but it's still a one-off use, and because the content is not signed by the company itself, I think there is a small problem with licensing (source/provenance). Using the company's own website item makes it very clear that this is their own branding mark exactly as they themselves wish it to be. But also, using a third-party static item makes it harder for WP:V and future maintenance. If we have the description be traced and linked to the live website for the entity, and it's easy to confirm that it is current branding they use or to help find a new one if they change it. DMacks (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Image for Location
I see that the image points at their old Prepaid Legal building. I can get a new image to upload. Should I just add it to the wikicommons files? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gratefullab (talk • contribs) 00:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be great! Please make sure the image is really "free"--that you yourself took the photograph, for example--so it meets wikipedia's fairly strict WP:COPYOTHERS requirements (let us know if you need help navigating that minefield). DMacks (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I checked out the WP:COPYOTHERS requirements and am confident my image complies. I'll let you know if I have any questions while trying to upload. Gratefullab (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This is complete. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. I think I navigated it okay, but I'm always learning something new here! Gratefullab (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The upload, tagging, and use look fine to me. I added a category to the image on commons (that site loves to keep things organized in a zillion ways). Might be nice to check the old and new files there and synchronize those cats (I did not investigate that, just wanted to keep a bot from whining at you for not adding a cat yourself:) DMacks (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks DMacks - I always learn something new so I will go look at the categories & old/new files for reference Gratefullab (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)