User:Valhalla9

Response from Valhalla9 to mschweig:

Response
Hello Mschweig, this is a response to your reply to Valhalla9.

MS> Was I wrong to delete your posted content? No. Val, you don't cite anything. How do you know Ameriprise is the 4th largest financial planning firm? Where did you learn that? How is the reader able to determine if they are the largest in the universe or if they are some Mom and Pop store that you run out of your garage? You see my point. You have to cite sources. Furthermore, you can't just say "according to JD power and associates." You have to provide a link to a website, or an actual source that someone can look up. Val, this is all stuff from junior-high when we had to write our first book reports.

Actually Mschweig, I didn't write that text! However unsatisfactory the citation about being the 4th largest financial planning firm, it is a citation that someone could look up.

If you look through the history, you'll see that this article has evolved over time, as a result of conflict between Ameriprise employees and Ameriprise critics, and with the help of other Wikipedia users. This process has resulted in a much better article - more accurate, more references cited, POV removed. I personally added numerous references to my contributions as a result of these interactions.

MS> From an outside point of view this page barely exists (compare it to the Star Wars page.)

Is the article perfect, or where it will eventually be? Absolutely not. This is a process, and having seen the dramatic improvements that have emerged in a short timespan, I look forward to seeing where the article will be a year from now. I expect it will be more detailed, with more specific citations. I have learned many things from others' contributions to the article of which I previously had no idea. The way this article has evolved and will evolve is through additions of citations and corrections when appropriate, rather than deletions which simply set us back to zero.

MS> You also said that this site was composed of the hard work of many ... Untrue, I see only few contributors here from a very tight-knit group all reverting or reposting the same information.

While a number of people have contributed to this article, I personally wish that more people would. Tight-knit group? I don't know any of the other contributors. You are mistaken regarding your comment about the reversions and repostings: if you look closely at the history you will see that some Ameriprise employees have tried to censor the article by deleting large sections. This is considered vandalism according to Wikipedia guidelines, and the reverts are simply corrections of this vandalism. The more meaningful contributions that have been made to the article are distinct from this vandalism.

MS> What sources cited? Ameriprisesuck.com, Ameriprise, and Morning Star. Val, that does not constitute "points of view." One is a hate site, one is the Company itself, and one is a company that works with Ameriprise. That is a terrible sampling. Unbiased, remember?

Wall Street Journal and Reuters articles, an SEC filing, specific cases and even a docket number, the fund research firm Morningstar, actual Ameriprise documents. If you have additional sources, your additions are welcome!

MS> The reason that I am writing back has to do with one thing in particular. "This is not a "[Hate site]" according to Wikipedia or according to any reasonable definition of the term." My response: DEFINE A HATE SITE, I apologize, but you fit the definition.

According to the corresponding Wikipedia article, "The term hate site is used by some to refer to websites that are said to promote hatred. Typically, these sites contain criticism of a specific race, religion, sexual behavior, or nationality." A complaint website that documents and discusses a company's policies and behaviors is entirely different in nature from this. Its merit derives from fact rather than prejudice.

MS> you post Adobe documents without validation. How is anyone supposed to know that those aren't just from competitors? What, it's not like you worked there or something?

I did not post Adobe documents; I linked to them. Nobody has doubted their authenticity, and I am sure that if they were not authentic we would hear pretty quickly from Ameriprise and its defenders.

From mschweig:

Congratulations Valhalla9, and welcome to the Wikipedia Universe. I hope now you are better versed on the rules that govern conduct and that you understand what is considered appropriate behavior.

Was I wrong to delete your posted content? No. Val, you don't cite anything. How do you know Ameriprise is the 4th largest financial planning firm? Where did you learn that? How is the reader able to determine if they are the largest in the universe or if they are some Mom and Pop store that you run out of your garage? You see my point. You have to cite sources. Furthermore, you can't just say "according to JD power and associates." You have to provide a link to a website, or an actual source that someone can look up. Val, this is all stuff from junior-high when we had to write our first book reports.

You said that my conduct is against Wikipedia standards. Swift and decisive perhaps it was, but not against Wikipedia standards. If everything you say is undocumented or biased Wikipedia is ok if it's deleted. Check the polices again, Ok. You also said that this site was composed of the hard work of many and that sources were cited. Untrue, I see only few contributors here from a very tight-knit group all reverting or reposting the same information. From an outside point of view this page barely exists (compare it to the Star Wars page.) What sources cited? Ameriprisesuck.com, Ameriprise, and Morning Star. Val, that does not constitute "points of view." One is a hate site, one is the Company itself, and one is a company that works with Ameriprise. That is a terrible sampling. Unbiased, remember?

The reason that I am writing back has to do with one thing in particular. "This is not a "[Hate site]" according to Wikipedia or according to any reasonable definition of the term."

My response: DEFINE A HATE SITE, I apologize, but you fit the definition.

You have no sources cited; you post Adobe documents without validation. How is anyone supposed to know that those aren't just from competitors? What, it's not like you worked there or something?