Talk:Cymax Group: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by Istillheartu - "" |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Tag: |
||
| (27 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
There is no neutrality issue in question here - these reports exist in the top 3 search results from Google. The criticism section merely links to those reports and all facts and references are provided and supported. There are no opinions - simply facts. Please keep that in mind. |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|||
{{WikiProject Retailing}} |
|||
}} |
|||
== Page Changelog == |
|||
Did a general quality edit because the language used (and how it was used) was terrible. Tentatively removed the BBB reference since a quick spin around of several other similar companies' pages didn't reveal that their rankings (good or bad) were published. If someone wants to put it back certainly feel free to do so, though please don't just revert to the previous, error-riddled version of the article. [[Special:Contributions/66.183.17.201|66.183.17.201]] ([[User talk:66.183.17.201|talk]]) 23:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Ripoff Report and other sites of that ilk have both neutrality and verifiability problems, and are thus not accepted as legitimate sources. "Being on Google" does not lend credibility to a source, sorry -- it merely gives a megaphone to a tiny minority. If Consumer Reports or a legitimate business analysis magazine published a critique of Cymax Stores, this would be acceptable. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.85.64.114|24.85.64.114]] ([[User talk:24.85.64.114|talk]]) 21:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Anonymous contributor, also please review the suitability of external links in Wikipedia:External Links. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.183.17.201|66.183.17.201]] ([[User talk:66.183.17.201|talk]]) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Ah, and that is the beauty of the internet. No matter how imperative it is to cover up these allegations, the minority will always have its say on the net, and as such, your efforts are entirely futile. Unfortunately, to this date, Consumer Reports has not published a critique of Cymax, but when it does, it will be published here. Yet one has to wonder about the neutrality and verifiability of larger reporting firms such as Consumer Reports or other "legitimate business analysis" magazines because as bureaucracies in and of themselves, they are most likely susceptible to corporate "payola". Maybe that's why we have not seen a report from Consumer Reports - Cymax allows the money to do the talking. Here's an idea - pay Ed Magedson to take down all those nasty reports you do not want people to see! <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Istillheartu|Istillheartu]] ([[User talk:Istillheartu|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Istillheartu|contribs]]) 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Latest revision as of 09:36, 31 January 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cymax Group article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Page Changelog
[edit]Did a general quality edit because the language used (and how it was used) was terrible. Tentatively removed the BBB reference since a quick spin around of several other similar companies' pages didn't reveal that their rankings (good or bad) were published. If someone wants to put it back certainly feel free to do so, though please don't just revert to the previous, error-riddled version of the article. 66.183.17.201 (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
1 October 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous contributor, also please review the suitability of external links in Wikipedia:External Links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.17.201 (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)