Talk:Vemma/Archives/2016

Settlement
News today: Vemma has just reached a settlement with the FTC. Do we wait until the details of the settlement come out to add this to the article, or is it worthy of mentioning now?Kerdooskis (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since nobody seems to have any thoughts on the matter, I will add the settlement news to the article. The fact that the multiple defendants have agreed to permanent injunction and monetary judgment (fines) seems like a big enough deal to me.Kerdooskis (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added new details about the FTC's decision (fine amounts, bans, stipulations, etc.), but I feel like some of that info belongs in the lead now. Just not sure what exactly to include or how to phrase it. Are there any other editors who agree with me and would like to take a stab at it? Thanks.Kerdooskis (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the new addition and support adding some of those details to the lead. If you want to take the first stab, I'll be more than happy to have a look and offer editorial support. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I just expanded the lead with pertinent info, citing a new source. The lead also looked a bit clunky, so I split it into two paragrapsh. I'm not married to my edit, but I think I captured what is most relevant. I'm all for any improvements you feel like making. Thanks for your help! Kerdooskis (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks perfect. Good job! Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)