User talk:Mtfitzgerald8

Welcome!
Hi Mtfitzgerald8! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. -  Em-em  talk 16:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Please be specific when making this type of accusation. I really do not know what you are talking about when you just provide generalities. It is totally and completely unacceptable to remove everything I write because you disagree with (for example) a single sentence or reference. You must be specific to be helpful. Meanwhile, I have reverted your massive reversion again. Please help me, rather than attacking me. Only specifics help. Just about everything I have written respects 100% of your guidelines. Please tell me what does not. Mtfitzgerald8 (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * assume good faith! Please these are the issues regarding your edits, recheck here diffs;


 * You cited pages from Wikipedia; we don't cite Wikipedia as reliable source
 * You add contents without reference to back then up
 * You removed parts of the original content of the page including there reliable references
 * You added a citation in the heading section, which we don't do that, see this heading
 * And at the ending, you provided a section saying; where are they now? Then you went up explaining something that's not usually seen in Wikipedia articles, this looks more like a promotion, are you connected with them? Or is just your allegations of their whereabouts that you wanted people to know?
 * Please revert your edits this time or I will report you of Vandalising this knowledge asset (Wikipedia).  Em-em   talk 10:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have started to address the various concerns you mention. It will take me a day or two to get through it all.

- Yes, I replaced an existing citation of the Wikipedia page for customer satisfaction with a citation for a different Wikipedia page with a definition of customer loyalty. I did not provide the original citation and since nobody had objected to that one, I did not realize it was not OK to have such citations.

- I have now started to dig further into references for each of the statements made in the article to attempt to address any impression made that anything I have written is personal opinion, rather than factual. There are very few statements without references. I have started with a reference to the addition of a second open question to the NPS standard. Since Bain, Reichheld, and Satmetrix own the trademark, any statement that comes from them and defines the standard must be considered to be authoritative.

- There was indeed a section written when NPS was relatively young that included references to some specific companies that implemented it. Since NPS has since become a massive phenomenon, I replaced that part by a reference to a Fortune article that states that two-thirds of the Fortune 500 now use it. I consider the old references as no longer necessary, since they were intended simply to show that at least a few companies were using NPS. However, since you object to this, I will find a way of phrasing it so that these very obsolete references can reappear. I do feel they weaken the article as they are all very old.

- Thanks for the pointer about not putting a citation in the heading. I will move it to the text.

- On the where are they now section, I just thought it might be interesting. I am just a retired person with an interest in the subject. I will see if I can rephrase to avoid it looking promotional, or will remove it.

Thanks for the pointers and advice. Mtfitzgerald8 (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I have now pretty well completed what you requested. There were problems with the citations for four companies listed as implementers of NPS as the links dated from about 2006 and are dead, so I removed the references to those companies. The same was true of the 2011 citation for social gaming implementation. The dead company links were for Siemens, E.ON, IBM and Vanguard. The others still work, so I restored them. Note that I did not originally supply any of the citations in question and continue to feel they are all really obsolete. Still, I have done as you asked.

I removed the reference to the customer loyalty Wikipedia page and moved the citation that was in the heading.

I still like the 'Where are they now?' section and don't feel it is commercial. It does not contain any links and it is directly about the co-inventors. Again, I get nothing for any of this.

I have added lots of new citations where they were missing. I am sure I will find and add a few more.

My next step will probably be the addition of a new section on employee NPS. Mtfitzgerald8 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)