Talk:Upoc Networks

This page appears to be regularily white washed by UPOC employees to remove criticisms of their company. Edits are made without any discussion on the talk page.
 * The criticism section essentially uses weasel words and original research; the sole 'citations' are a boycott site, which is going to have serious POV issues. I've cleaned it up some, removing serious accusations whose sole citations are boycottupoc.com and adding cn. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 14:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything claimed by the Boycott Upoc site is backed by evidence on the site, most of it with links and screengrabs from the Upoc site itself. Although NPOV is not apparent in the criticisms, it is a counterbalance to the original content of the article which was nothing other than an advertisment. I added more citations from the BU site which directly back the assertions in the criticisms section. The "NPOV" of the article is achieved via inclusion of the criticisms but any re-write suggestions are welcome. MerrimacVI 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Veinor's goal seems to be removal of any citations from the Boycott Upoc website. This is the same goal Upoc itself has had, in its various attempts to whitewash their own article without discussion. The links to BU should stay, as it is a factual and credible source of information. MerrimacVI 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The BU site cites news sources, Justice Department press releases, and emails from Upoc itself. There is also some original research, however. I believe the citation should stay at minimum on the paragraph about the arrests. MerrimacVI 14:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then cite the news sources and press releases directly. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 14:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the source links are dead links, this is why BU archived and screengrabbed them. Please take a look at my edit I am about to do, see if it passes muster.MerrimacVI 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Suppose that's because they were never valid to begin with? You could always look them up in the Wayback Machine; see Using the Wayback Machine. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Two of the sources, one from the Hartford Courant and those from the Mobile Register, were removed before they were archived by archive.org. The Wayback Machine takes six months, sometimes longer, to archive pages. These media sources remove stories as a matter of course, to save space on their servers. MerrimacVI 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, then, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to find a citation that's from a reliable sources. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 15:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is merely an advertisement then, and should be removed. It was placed on Wiki for purely promotional purposes. The BU site is the ONLY source which puts together all the missing pieces, and media links are included in the articles there. If Upoc belongs here, BU does as well. MerrimacVI 15:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the intro is written from a POV perspective; but it's not so blatant that it should be removed. Besides, I don't object to the criticism, as long as you can source it. Or are you saying that you can't back it up? Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 15:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please look at most recent edit, see if this is an appropriate compromise. MerrimacVI 15:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no; it's too weaselly for my tastes. Essentially, if we allow statements in because of 'some say'-type statements, we allow anybody to add anything if they say 'Some people say that X'. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Using that logic, the entire criticisms section should be removed, as Upoc has numerous times attempted to do. Several whitewashings by Upoc have been done to this article, only to be reverted by Wiki editors. It seems inconsistent for you to be overriding past reversions by other editors.

The article is a complete and total promotional advertisment without the criticisms section. MerrimacVI 15:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You have completely whitewashed the article, as Upoc wished. I am sure they thank you. MerrimacVI 15:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I live to please my corporate masters :-P Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 15:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is noted. I wasn't making any such assertion, merely pointing out the inconsistency regarding the criticisms among different Wiki editors. MerrimacVI 15:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia strives for neutrality in its content. Please see WP:NPOV. -- Jmax- 15:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jmax your final version looks to be as neutral as possible, however the criticisms are valid and sourced, the BU site investigates carefully and although it isn't a media outlet, its findings and conclusions are credible. MerrimacVI 15:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Credibly as though they may be, they are not relevant for this article, and such material should not be linked in to this article as they are not directly related to the article's subject. Please see WP:EL -- Jmax- 15:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How is criticism of a company not directly related within an article about said company? MerrimacVI 15:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 15:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Veinor, I'll quote the relevant part of what you just linked for you:

"Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance..."

The impact of a site geared and marketed towards kids, who then allows usergroups for pedophilia, drug use, porn and other adult content, is SIGNIFICANT. MerrimacVI 16:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see your point. However, in any case, you need to provide reliable sources; 'Boycott Upoc'-like sites don't count due to their fundamental non-neutral point of view. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 16:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I will prepare and submit a proper criticisms section in the near future. You all do a fine job here which is often thankless, just want you to know I do appreciate it. MerrimacVI 16:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Upoc employees coming from ext.upocnetworks.com continue to whitewash this article.MerrimacVI (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Upoc Networks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061217015954/http://www.upocnetworks.com/ to http://www.upocnetworks.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061231172216/http://www.upoc.com:80/ to http://www.upoc.com/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Upoc Networks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080118051833/http://www.upocnetworks.com:80/about.html to http://www.upocnetworks.com/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)