Talk:Cymax Group

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.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.64.114 (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Istillheartu (talk • contribs) 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It still remains that anonymous blogs and forums are not legitimate sources for Wikipedia, on this article or any, because they do not satisfy the notability, verifiability or reliability guidelines. Therefore the criticisms have no place here. Minority opinions must be supported by reliable, factual, and expert sources. None of which are currently supplied, no matter how many exclamation points appear in these anonymous complaints. It's that simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.64.114 (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, conspiracy theories about "payola" are not sufficient to discredit a magazine like Consumer Reports, or indeed Internet Retailer, the magazine that is actually referenced on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.64.114 (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You are persistent. How is it over there in Vancouver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuhd7d (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is lovely in Vancouver, thank you -- much lovelier than running an absurd vendetta of vandalism and hilariously misdirected Internet Detective attempts from behind a cluster of fake accounts. You are as good at reading Wikipedia's fine-print as you were at reading Cymax's -- both to your detriment, it seems. We will continue reverting your inane attempts at anonymous slander and vandalism until Wikipedia's arbitrators remove this capacity from you. Have a small, but nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.64.114 (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The above editor has been indefinitely blocked, on all four accounts he's used to disrupt this page. If he returns with new accounts, simply let me know, or file another report at WP:AIV. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Did a general quality edit because the language used (and how it was used) was frankly 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)

Thank you 65.46.15.110 for doing exactly what I asked you not to do above; that is, blindly revert the page instead of trying to improve it. Just in case it wasn't clear this is what I had improved over the previous page: - Removed several noun and pronoun confusions - Changed from erratic first person/third person mix to consistent third person - Updated and improved citations, made citations more relevant over multiple articles By simply reverting it you may have some of the information you wanted back into the page, but at the expense of a tighter article. I've re-added the BBB info (assuming that is what you were after) without changing the structure of the article. Please edit effectively and discuss any additional information you want added here. 66.183.17.201 (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is obviously being maintained by someone acting as an agent for Cymax and therefore lacks even the pretense of neutrality. This person has been diligent in removing anything less than flattering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.219.216 (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)