Talk:ASmallWorld

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Owen× ☎ 23:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me...?

I, for one, find the entire concept of such a website to be incredibly offensive. Anyone else agree?

Believe it or not, excluding people can be useful sometimes; on LiveJournal, for example, it gives you a lot of control over privacy which makes writing a blog much more enjoyable. But in this case, I have to agree that this network is more snobbish than it is useful. From the Gawker articles, I gather that it's mainly used for talking about uber-exclusive locations that the members don't want "lay people" to know about. Its members aren't so much celebrities who value their privacy, as much as no-name upper crust characters who have inherited a lot of money and want to feel like they're part of the in-crowd (half of the members cited in news reports didn't have Wikipedia articles). Ashibaka tock 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh... validation of my opinion. Thanks. NorphTehDwarf 05:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much spot on - I was a member, and decided that it was a load of crap - mostly nouveau or inheritance-kiddies. It used to be a very useful resource, but it's now a bloated mass of creme (or scum - both float on top of liquids). --MAdaXe 14:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Neat, could you give us a better screenshot? Ashibaka tock 02:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That probably violates some bit of legalism or something. I wonder if SA might end up putting some of this on the Weekend Web. That'd truly be magnificent. NorphTehDwarf 05:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We have a special tag for it, {{web-screenshot}}. Ashibaka tock 19:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, excluding people can be useful. However, this entry is an obvious case of shameless self promotion. People arguing about the concept is probably just what was intended.

(1) Invite some celebrities. (2) Start a controversy to increase awareness.

Ads should be deleted.

This is more than an ad, it has 100,000 members or so. Ashibaka tock 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• i hope this site gets hack to bits someday. Owwmykneecap 04:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been said that one of the main reason for the creation of aSmallWorld is to provided it's 50 year old owner Erik Wachmeister and his close associates access to young women and to celebrities parties.

Why would you want to converse with such snobs anyway? XdiabolicalX 12:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's useful. You can actually safely meet with the people on it (would you invite a myspace stranger out to dinner?). In addition, because members share certain taste, their recommendations are more relevant to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.132.242.1 (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Erik Wachtmeister's father

Who is he?--MoMo the Pirate 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem reference

This [1] reference is not valid from its appearance. It appears to be a wiki that anyone can create an account login, and edit. Other wikis cannot be used as references here on wikipedia. They are unreliable sources, see WP:V and WP:RS. Does this website operate different than it appears?--Crossmr 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like it is not an open wiki; it is restricted to owners of a certain book about SNSes. Also, it was last updated in July 2005, which is when the author of the site, David Teten, received the information about aSmallWorld from its owner. So, I believe we can attribute this information directly to him rather than the wiki. Ashibaka tock 21:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I downloaded the book and signed up, and I discovered that the following message is at the bottom of the wiki page when you login:

"Locked Page | Help | Home | Recent Changes"

So, this isn't a wiki after all, it was written by David Teten. Ashibaka tock 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There are two different logins there. A corporate profile wiki, and a readers login. I wonder if its editable if you have a corporate profile account.--Crossmr 22:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

List of social networking websites on AfD

List of social networking websites is currently a candidate for deletion. You are invited to partake in the discussion.--Crossmr 14:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not notable

Can someone please explain how a site ranked 900,000+ in Alexa and with only 2 sources is on wikipedia? This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Yuniti , draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marquinho/Yuniti_(draft)

Was deleted despite being in the top 200,000 site in Alexa and having 5+ sources Marquinho Marquinho (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be citing press releases and web industry blogs, rather than news media and society blogs. Shii (tock) 17:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A Big World

I don't understand "A Big World". Is it a limited version of ASmallWord? Is it just a void space? Can exiles be readmitted? --Error (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Alexa rank

I have updated, i.e. corrected the alexa rank: ca 620,000 ranks up: from 658,892 → 38,861.

Please note that the previous version provided a link to the "asmallworld.net", the website before its mid-2013 relaunch as "asmallworld.com". That's the reason why the ranking dropped from below 10,000 (in August 2012) to above 550,000 (in August 2013).

Currently, "asmallworld.com" is ranked 38,861 --IIIraute (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring, sockpuppets, WP:OR & WP:SYNTH, proposed deletion of article

The WP:SYNTH and WP:OR content that was recently added by 67.80.233.89, e.g. here and here - and reverted by User:Coasterlover1994 here, was restored again through consistent edit warring by User:Faceplant2020 and User:Mostlyoksorta.

Later on the IP returned with the proposal to delete the article - this proposal was reinforced by User:Mostlyoksorta.

The article is now nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASmallWorld. --IIIraute (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to Edit Warring, etc. Claims

I have put the page up for deletion. No other people, no sockpuppets or whatever have commented or voted on the deletion as far as I can see. The page is ranked lowly on Alexa, only has citations to the CEO advertising the company, has been on an advertising warning for years, and has also been thought relevant for deletion/G11 for years. I am not waring, I do not understand why edits are getting deleted by IIIraute when they cite the same sources or more independent sources than those that IIIraute replaces them with? In fact, IIIraute, deleted one source in the 'Controvesy' section while leaving the SAME EXACT SOURCE to support advertising claims earlier in the page (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

Well, how come an IP is doing the edit warring now, obviously in order to fix the article in favor of asw management? --Tkvu (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Tkvu I have no idea how to stop them from doing that, but it is pretty obvious... (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC))

IIIraute do you have any ideas of how to controvert the warring of the IP address, you were pretty good at keeping me neutral ;) (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC))

Page protection --IIIraute (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

New Alexa Ratings

A bot has replaced the faulty Alexa rankings put up by IIIraute - the ranking again drops below 500,000. I am confused why IIIraute is making accusations when only editing in a non-neutral manner? Is IIIraute employed by asmallworld to monitor their page, a member of the site, what is the reason for the non-neutral (and apparently false in the case of Alexa) editing? (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

Get real. --IIIraute (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

IIIraute Listen I'm not a technology person, I can just read what the site says. I also didn't start yelling and screaming and making accusations about fellow editors. Why not just let the facts speak and avoid all the back and forth nonsense, whatever the ranking winds up being it is a) not a deciding factor for deletion under wikipedia rules and b) clearly not blowing the lid off anyone's idea of notability whether it is 500,000th or 38,000th. There is basically no citation on the entire page that isn't a quote of the CEO hyping her product within a month of it's relaunch. And almost all of the edits of the page were created by an IP address about a week before asmallworld's relaunch in 2013. It screams advertising and marketing. I don't understand what argument there is against that. Outside of accusations against editors what basis do you have for believing asmallworld is a)not advertising and b)of relevant notability? (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

I did offer you help to rewrite the article - instead, you did choose to continue your edit warring. Most of the content you have added is original research and synthesis. Please note the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" (often called the status quo ante).

I am asking you now, Mostlyoksorta: did you do any recent IP or the User:Faceplant2020 edits? It is not too difficult to find out - see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations --IIIraute (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not the same person as Faceplant2020, though it is rather intimidating to me that you are barreling through my privacy, but I spoke to Faceplant2020 and will you let you know that I know that person. We did discuss edits together, which as far as I know is ok. Faceplant2020 will stay out the deletion debate if that makes you happy? As for any IP address, as you can tell we are both new to this so maybe someone forgot to log on, we're on public computers sometimes? Anyway, I hope that ends the belligerent Sherlock Holmes part of this discussion, and we can focus on whether or not the 500,000th/38,000th most important site on the internet, which is plagued with advertising material and non-neutral should stay on Wikipedia. It's pretty simple. Thanks (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)).

Oh yeah and since I got all honest at your request, do you IIIraute accept compensation in any manner from asmallworld? Or do I need to do some background check on that? It's really not nice to act that way. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

The membership numbers cannot be accurate...

The article says membership is capped at 250,000, and the sidebar says that there are 250,000 members.

Well, I get regular spam-style "invitations" to "reactivate my membership." Since I'm hardly special (I can't have logged in more than 10 times before it became a pay site), I can only infer that they have far fewer than their 250,000 member cap.

I can't find any reliable information on how many actual members the site has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka (talk • contribs) 05:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

IIIraute I saw your edit, quick question - it clearly is unproven that they have delivered any car service to any one, but it is a fact that they have less than 250,000 members, for the reasons stated above. Why did you get rid of the 250,000 but not they several hundred delivered? Just curious (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC))

I don't even know where the "several hundred" number comes from - since it wasn't contested, I assumed that the number was correct. We do not know how many members ASW has - and we have no idea, how many of those members did apply for this car service - therefore it is more than speculative to imply that ASW deliverd several hundred rides to "less than 250.000 members". The whole sentence is unsourced and should be removed completely. --IIIraute (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Open to anyone who completed a membership application?

"As of October 2013, asmallworld became open to anyone who completed a membership application and paid the membership fee." That's not what the sources say - also, facebook isn't really one → ASW: Access to ASMALLWORLD is for members only. Please complete the form below to be considered for membership. We will be in touch if your application is accepted.

Facebook: Thank you all for your feedback about our decision to start accepting membership applications. One thing to keep in mind: a membership committee will carefully review all applications and vet potential members, giving us control over who joins our community – much like many private membership clubs. --IIIraute (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I will rephrase (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC))

Also, when you think something is slightly misworded it is probably better to change the wording then to delete the change. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC))

asmallworld's own website takes applications, that is the relevant citation (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

https://www.asmallworld.com/apply as cited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyoksorta (talk • contribs) 01:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"We are an international, invitation-only club" → www.asmallworld.com

Yes, you can apply - to be considered for invitation! Access to ASMALLWORLD is for members only. Please complete the form below to be considered for membership. We will be in touch if your application is accepted.

Business Insider: "ASmallWorld, the invite-only social network..."

New York Post: "...the invitation-only site A Small World..."

The National: "The exclusive, invitation-only social networking site..." --IIIraute (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Access to ASMALLWORLD is for members only. Please complete the form below to be considered for membership. We will be in touch if your application is accepted. Learn more about ASW membership and offerings here. We also occasionally send emails with editorial content, event invitations and special deals from our partners. Please indicate below if you’d like to be added to our mailing list." https://www.asmallworld.com/apply_for_membership - that is the page where you apply for membership, I am a member, I have no idea why you think I am lying about this, the posted it on their own facebook page which I cited before, and on the board that are open to members only :) (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

Also the any article prior to October 2013 will not reflect these changes, because that's when the changes were made. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

" Membership requires an invitation from an existing member or an approved membership application by our international committee of trustees." https://www.asmallworld.com/about-us (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

Yes, you can apply - to be considered for invitation! Access to ASMALLWORLD is for members only. Please complete the form below to be considered for membership. We will be in touch if your application is accepted. --IIIraute (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"We are an international, invitation-only club" → www.asmallworld.com

You can apply - to be considered for invitation! Access to ASMALLWORLD is for members only. Please complete the form below to be considered for membership. We will be in touch if your application is accepted.

Business Insider: "ASmallWorld, the invite-only social network..."

New York Post: "...the invitation-only site A Small World..."

The National: "The exclusive, invitation-only social networking site..." --IIIraute (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

IIIraute if you don't believe me why don't you apply, I'm pretty sure they will just charge your credit card and not send you 'an invitation.' You can cite as many sources as you want they a clearly not 'invitation only' anymore, they accept applications, they had an internal pr fiasco when they decided to make this change. I'll warn you though if you do apply, you probably will ask for your money back hahahaha ;) (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

If they don't accept you don't worry I'll send you an invitation so you can see for yourself (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

Also the any article prior to October 2013 will not reflect these changes, because that's when the changes were made. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

Do you have a source for this "October 2013" claim - because facebook is none. --IIIraute (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"To compliment the re-launch celebrations, ASMALLWORLD was also excited to announce the launch of it’s new Membership Program, thereby extending Open Application in India for interested candidates. Swayed by the overwhelming demand that has remained constant over the last decade, ASMALLWORLD finally decided to accept member applications. A first in ten years, the travel & lifestyle club is ready to begin vetting interested candidates."http://everythingexperiential.com/asmallworld-partners-with-bungalow-8-to-celebrate-relaunch/#.U2KrCIFdWuk (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

"Previously by-member-invite-only, ASMALLWORLD is excited to welcome applications from qualified individuals to join its community." http://www.nichearabia.com/asmallworld-charts-uae-expansion/ (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

A "consultancy firm" is not a reliable source. Also it doesn't contradict the fact that ASMALLORLD is "...an international, invitation-only club" → www.asmallworld.com

You can apply - to be considered for invitation! Access to ASMALLWORLD is for members only. Please complete the form below to be considered for membership. We will be in touch if your application is accepted.

ASMALLWORLD: "We are an international, invitation-only club" → www.asmallworld.com --IIIraute (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

So asmallworlds own releases on facebook are not ok? Nor websites that that you unilaterally deem as pr? Well every reference other reference on this page most be viewed as self serving pr statements . I don't know what sources are ok with you. Seriously why don't you just join yourself and see, I have no reason to lie about ASW s application process. You never answered are you compensated by ASW? (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

also we can agree to disagree, I know for a fact you can apply and become a member, but if you want to keep up your position that'sfine. I will maintain the site at the status quo until someone other than you or the ASW ip address changes it. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

Please see WP:RS - your claims are not supported by any reliable secondary sources.

Also, please follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in, before you did your bold edits and change of content" (often called the status quo ante). And no, I am not being compensated by ASW. --IIIraute (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"While this essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline itself"Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is NOT A POLICY OR GUIDELINE ITSELF. Also, you are consitently being complained about for revenge reversions (and then even reverting those complaints - I would appreciate it if you did not engage in "revenge reverting", stalking and harassment, as you did here [1], just because we are engaged in a disagreement on some other article. You obviously have not edited that article or topic area before (unless I'm missing something). Yet you show up here just to revert me. This is petty and immature. Furthermore, your edit summary - "restore referenced content" - is telling. Either you didn't actually bother looking at my edit before reverting it, or, you are making up bullshit edit summaries again. My edit did not remove any content. It removed two sources which say nothing about the text they're supposed to be citing. As my edit summary adequately explained "Yngve is not even mentioned in either of these sources".

So why are you reverting me? This looks very bad. Please stop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)" You deleted this totally appropriate commentary - furthermore you have a long long list of complaints on this topic. I will contact an administrator if this cycle continues. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC))

Please do so - copying unrelated comments from my talk page here, is more than inappropriate. --IIIraute (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• The ASMALLWOLD website clearly states: "We are an international, invitation-only club" → www.asmallworld.com

  One can apply - "to be considered" for invitation → Access to ASMALLWORLD is for members only. Please complete the form below to be considered for membership. We will be in touch if your application is accepted.

  Business Insider: "ASmallWorld, the invite-only social network..."

  New York Post: "...the invitation-only site A Small World..."

  The National: "The exclusive, invitation-only social networking site..."

  Removing this sourced content, based on the argument presented above, is in violation with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --IIIraute (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I respect your opinion do not wish to further engage in our back in forth here, I submitted this to dispute resolution. Let's have an independent 3rd party measure the sources- which are https://www.asmallworld.com/apply - http://everythingexperiential.com/asmallworld-partners-with-bungalow-8-to-celebrate-relaunch/#.U2KrCIFdWuk - http://www.nichearabia.com/asmallworld-charts-uae-expansion/ - the October 2013 facebook post by ASW (I know I know it is not a WP:RS)- finally it conflicts with your own edit that ASW is membership by invitation or by application - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ASmallWorld&diff=607262497&oldid=606794862 - also feel free to ask the two ASW employees who commented at the bottom of the talk page. Let the DR volunteer measure the sources then we can both feel done with this. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC))

Gender Discrimination Law Suit

Hitherto, nothing more than an allegation: "Tonny Uy has filed a gender-discrimination lawsuit against his former empress ployer, A Small World, where he worked as an accountant. He claims he lost his job because he asked for the same amount of paid family leave given to female workers." & "A man says his Manhattan employer — an exclusive online social network for the rich — fired him because he asked for the same amount of paid family leave given to female workers." here

"Man sues employer for alleged firing over paternity leave" & "A gay man socked his snooty employer — a social-networking site that bills itself as a “myspace for millionaires” — with a lawsuit Wednesday alleging that he was wrongfully fired after seeking paternity leave when his daughter was born." here --IIIraute (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It is only an allegation and it will be stated as such in the article, it was cited in two newspapers. An allegation of gender discrimination is clearly worthy of being noted. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC))

Also please no section blanking, this story was covered in two of the biggest newspapers in New York City and is a Federal Civil Rights Case. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

Also I don't understand what your citations above indicate? I have read the complaint in this matter and it is a Title VII Gender Discrimination suit under the Civil Rights Act. Are you somehow diminishing that? (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

It is only an allegation yet. Also please note → Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle --IIIraute (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A lawsuit is not only an allegation it is a lawsuit, I never wrote anything that imputes the veracity of the allegations. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

Also as far as I can see pending legal disputes are treated as valid topics on wikipedia (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

Quote (Mostlyoksorta), "I never wrote anything that imputes the veracity of the allegations.", unqote. --IIIraute (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Your point? Do I need to direct you to the hundreds if not thousands of wikipedia pages that mention pending lawsuits? (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

No reason to get uncivil: "Or to a dictionary for that matter?" --IIIraute (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

well i deleted it because i thought it was uncivil, but here is my whole uncivil rant for you if you want it : listen homie and by homie I mean IIIraute I'm not the one who blanks sections, deletes the most recent material, and I never said I have two accounts, I said I know another person I was working with. If you feel like spending your time propping up some semi-elitist internet scam, I sure hope your getting paid for it. I am glad you can also quote an elitist English order, congrats on your French. You are the best Sherlock Holmes on Wikipedia. So feel free to continue trying to delete a section on a Gender Discrimination case that is pending in a federal court. I am sure that helps you sleep at night. Just cause you are self proclaimed high wizard of wikipedia or whatever you think you are doesn't mean I haven't put up valid current sources of relevant material. So go back to playing with your magic want and quoting semi-extinct cults of England. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyoksorta (talk • contribs)

"I am not the same person as Faceplant2020, though it is rather intimidating to me that you are barreling through my privacy, but I spoke to Faceplant2020 and will you let you know that I know that person. We did discuss edits together, which as far as I know is ok. Faceplant2020 will stay out the deletion debate if that makes you happy? As for any IP address, as you can tell we are both new to this so maybe someone forgot to log on, we're on public computers sometimes? Anyway, I hope that ends the belligerent Sherlock Holmes part of this discussion, and we can focus on whether or not the 500,000th/38,000th most important site on the internet, which is plagued with advertising material and non-neutral should stay on Wikipedia. It's pretty simple. Thanks" here --IIIraute (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

um, what here? (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

and um also, what is your goal to fight me or put up the most relevant well supported material, because as far as I can see you are the only one who keeps pushing on a personal fight. I asked other editors for their opinions. When I proposed this page for deletion I notified almost everyone who voted - AND THEY ALL VOTED AGAINST DELETION - you see I am just learning at this, I ask other editors for help. I have even asked you for help. So seriously what is your deal? Why are you fighting against the just inclusion of a section citing 2 of the 3 biggest papers in New York? Why are you deleting my assertation (100% factual and NPOV - and TAKEN FROM ASW's own site) that they now accept membership applications? What is your beef? (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

I did not revert this content again, so I am not fighting anything - however, IMHO your contributions to this article are not NPOV, and look like some kind of revenge campaign - you have mentioned private e-mails you have exchanged with the company, and also this. Both, the RipoffReport Complaint Review, and your first edits on this article (together with User:Faceplant2020 and the IP), happen to share the same date: 28. March 2014. Please note that the IP also relocates to New York; i.e. the same location from the RipoffReport Complaint Review. In your comment above, you did write: "When I proposed this page for deletion..." - however, please be aware of the fact, that it was the IP that proposed the deletion of the article. --IIIraute (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC) WP:OUTING, WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL WP:AOHA (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC))

like i said at the time i am on a shared computer and have to login and off. when i proposed for deletion i forgot to login, but i quickly corrected myself in all further edits on this matter (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

also please stop revealing what you think to be personal information about me. It is threatening and I mentioned before and violates Wikipedia policy. New York is a big place with lots of people, so I'm not sure what your claim can be meant as other than a threat (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC))(Mostlyoksorta (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

"I am a member" "If they don't accept you don't worry I'll send you an invitation""... if you don't believe me why don't you apply, I'm pretty sure they will just charge your credit card and not send you 'an invitation.' ... I'll warn you though if you do apply, you probably will ask for your money back hahahaha ;)"

You are clearly biased - and your edits are not NPOV! --IIIraute (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

IIIraute what is not NPOV about stating that there is a pending federal lawsuit? I am still missing the point? THERE IS A FEDERAL CASE INVOLVING ASMALLWORLD - if I was not NPOV I would mention my feelings on that issue, which are less than favorable. However, I simply stated a very clear fact. There is a case against ASW and that involves gender discrimination. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

IIIraute Also I have been honest, you never answered ARE YOU PAID BY ASW? (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

IIIraute also don't be jealous that I am the member of an ultra exclusive club and your not, JK get a sense of humor brother (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

IIIraute also, once you are done answering whether or not you accept compensation from ASW, please let me know why your entire talk page history is filled with conflicts, why are you so into page blanking and starting fights? It can't be so boring in whatever little town you live in (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

also i think it is very hypocritical that you are citing arguing about this topic when you were a frequent contributor to ANOTHER PENDING LEGAL MATTER Oscar Pistorius' trial. Not sure why you think it is ok to write about that trial and not this one. So I'll ask another question, what is your substantive problem with this Law Suit section? (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC))

I don't have a problem with this section, and I did revert this content only once - however, IMHO your contributions to this article are biased and not NPOV. --IIIraute (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

It appears IP address 83.113.255.192 has a COI and is either the company itself or an agent of the company, see edit history (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC))

Same with IP address 184.75.28.74 (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC))

Same with IP address 137.159.133.78 (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC))

Same with various other IP addresses throughout the early days of this page (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC))

Connected contributor/Conflict of Interest (evidence):

From the very first day on the WP - and after an unsuccessful attempt to get this article deleted - Mostlyoksorta has edited the content of this article to the disadvantage of the private social club this article is about - and this editor is a member of. Since account creation, about five weeks ago, this editor has not edited a single other article yet - while violating WP:RS, WP:SYNTH and WP:MEAT at this article.

"I am a member"

"If they don't accept you don't worry I'll send you an invitation"

"... if you don't believe me why don't you apply, I'm pretty sure they will just charge your credit card and not send you 'an invitation.' ... I'll warn you though if you do apply, you probably will ask for your money back hahahaha ;)"

"...don't be jealous that I am the member of an ultra exclusive club and your not..."

"I have emails from asmallworld confirming these facts..." --IIIraute (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

being a member of a club has nothing to do with COI, first off. second your intimidation tactics, outing, and harassment have all been reported. LEAVE ME ALONE - this has nothing to do with my edits - which include adding a gender discrimination case, correcting membership application processes, and the actual number of members. Again you are scaring me I cannot tolerate this abuse. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC))

please see admin warning → User talk:Mostlyoksorta#May 2014 & Edit warring, sockpuppets, WP:OR & WP:SYNTH, proposed deletion of article → Articles for deletion/ASmallWorld --IIIraute (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

what are your criticisms about the content? this is wikihounding see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMostlyoksorta&diff=606778226&oldid=606778102 for examples of this. Please discuss content and keep your vendetta out of it. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC))

oh right you have no criticism of the content : "I don't have a problem with this section, and I did revert this content only once - however, IMHO your contributions to this article are biased and not NPOV. --IIIraute (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)":(Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC))

Connected contributor/Conflict of Interest (evidence) for ASMALLWORLD EMPLOYEES Kabirsa91 and Muriellefinster have admitted to being ASMALLWORLD employees and should be blocked - "I work at ASMALLWORLD, and although I am not advocating a biased page, I am requesting you, or the appropriate individual to edit the spammy information off this page. " and "We're operating from the same location, that is correct" (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014

Hi- There is some information on this page that is highly biased, and frequently untrue. Please may I edit this with a neutral perspective? Thank you very much --Kabirsa91 (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to propose a specific edit here. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.- Arjayay (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

Hi, In that case, may we please remove the controversies section? The information is personal in nature, not cited, and even irrelevant. For example, the St. Kitts partnership is not a controversy at all since ASW members have been routinely informed of its progress with renovations. The last sentence of paragraph 1 is not cited, AND it is extremely specious.

A lot the sources cited in this section have been acquired from celebrity gossip blogs, which are specious and unreliable sources to begin with.

Please review the matter, and revert to me. I await your response.

Thank you, Best,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muriellefinster (talk • contribs)

Hello both Kabirsa91 and Muriellefinster appear to know each other or be the same person seeWP:MEATWP:SOCK, based on the fact that they made the above requests in unison, Muriellefinster responded to the denial of the request by Kabirsa91 and mentioned used the plural "we" - "may we please remove the controversies section" finally both accounts were only created today and never edited another page. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

We're operating from the same location, that is correct- Also nobody denied Kabirsa91's request? He didn't even ask for one. So may we please remove the sections or not? Thank you, Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muriellefinster (talk • contribs)

You should read the policy here WP:SOCK. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

Hi Mostlyoksorta, There is no reason to be rude. I am requesting you for help. I work at ASMALLWORLD, and although I am not advocating a biased page, I am requesting you, or the appropriate individual to edit the spammy information off this page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muriellefinster (talk • contribs)

Unsourced Member Vetting Section

The entire 'Member Vetting Section' is unsourced and I would propose it's deletion. The two citations given are not relevant to the statements that precede them. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC))

Following dispute resolution the member vetting process was clarified, I included the consensus opinion of the volunteer in this section and deleted the unsourced material or that material which is no longer applicable, since membership is now both through board approval and invitation. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC))

Page protection

Since the story is complicated, and I have issues with page protection before, let me record it here. I was patrolling WP:RFPP and went to investigate this request. I have never heard of ASmallWorld and I am completely uninvolved. I saw that there is indeed persistent disruption (unexplained removal of sourced material), but all this removal was done by an IP editor who even overstepped four reverts. I blocked the IP, reverted the last removal, and decided not to protect the page for the time being and instead add it to the watch list and wait. Within an hour, my removal was reverted by a different IP. Then I protected the page and reverted the removal again. I have no horse here and I am not interested in mediation, therefore I am unwatching the page. Pls ping me if more explanations are needed. If this is a content dispute please resolve it at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The page protection probably makes sense given the edit warring. However I think it makes sense to remove this part: "for failing to provide the goods and services promised" from the lede since it's sourced to somebody's blog.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Here is a much better German language source which has a lot more information and source material if you could just include this source instead of the other one that would be great [2]. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

Another better source is [3] (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

I see that Bishonen now fully protected the page, so that now we should act via formal edit protected requests.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This page is a joke

This page can clearly not be taken seriously and has become the playground for users who are definitely not interested in facts but rather pro-actively harm ASW and it's chairman. The fact that boulevard press reports which have been proven to be wrong are taking up such a large portion of the companies "history" is just pathetic and clearly against the spirit of Wikipedia. If you take the time to follow the case you will understand that Patrick Liotard-Vogt left for St.Kitts a while ago after investing a large amount of money (600m USD) when buying out the government in the Kittitian Hill project. Furthermore, the claims were made by Diners Club and not it's CEO as stated in the article. In addition to that, one has to note, that PLV was main investor in Diners Club and served on the BoD and the business closed down in march 2014 a clear indication for a shareholder dispute. It should also be mentioned, that a claim (Betreibung) in Switzerland is not a lawsuit and can be filed by anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisstruth (talk • contribs)

The Lead/Edit Warring

what information should be included in the lead? I believe the this lead includes too many peacock terms 'exclusive', 'myspace for millionaires' etc. are self-serving and created by the company. Rather than engage in an edit war with IIIraute on this topic I would like to solicit third party opinions here (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC))

Who are Ymblanter, Mostlyoksorta and Kelapstick

all of them seem to have a very strong interest in showcasing a very negative aspect of ASW going as far as hiding the truth. I would doubt their good faith and honesty, especially the ones claiming to be independent and having never heard of ASW although writing extensively about Henley & Partner, a former partner of ASW? Come on guys, stop your fraudulent approach, respect Wikipedia, fight your personal wars somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisstruth (talk • contribs) 10:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: and @Kelapstick: I am not sure if this merits response on your behalves, just thought you should know it is out there. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC))

@Swisstruth:please refrain from personal attacks against administrators and other editors, see [4] you should always assume good faith [5], if you if you want to make edits you need to use reliable sources, and you should not delete reliably sourced materials, see [6] you cannot simply delete reliably sourced material because you do not like it, see [7]. I don't know if you were also operating as the IP addresses which were editing the relevant sections before this page was protected the last three times, but if so you should also read the Wikipedia policy on sockpuppets [8]. Thanks (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC))

@Mostlyoksorta: thank you for your comments, much appreciated, so let me walk you through my thoughts. First of all, will you share your thoughts on why you believe that the company history should consist of 60% (7 out of 12 lines) about an individual who is the chairman and owner since 2009? How exactly are apparent claims against an individual linked to the company? The statement "reportedly fled to St.Kitts" is not correct please see [9]. LV was active in St.Kitts well before claims aroused in connection with a multi hundred million USD investment, please see [10] . I think you should reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisstruth (talk • contribs)

There are two problems with those sources. The first source is not reliable, it is written by asmallworld member who was invited to 'champagne, cigars, and an infinity pool on St. Kitts' with the subject, and does not provide any third party verifiable sources to contradict the dozens of newspaper articles on this topic. At most it includes a comment by the subject that he "could pay off his debts." This is not a reliable source, and does not state that he has paid off his debts. A subject's own self-serving statements about themselves are not reliable sources, see Richard Nixon "I am not a crook." As to the second link you provided, the fact that the subject owns property or invests money on the island in which he fled to does not prove that he did not flee there. Again, there are dozens of independent newspaper sources on this topic. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC))

@Mostlyoksorta: will you please clarify why LV is worth 60% of the company history with only one topic not related to ASW? Why would you not mention his previous experience in social media, for example the trade sales to Axel Springer? please elaborate in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1205:502c:e8d0:e1d0:ecfc:ee30:6f45 (talk • contribs)

@Mostlyoksorta: your previous statements are not correct. First of all, none of your sources suggest he "fled" to st.kitts. the original article from Handelszeitung states that he has moved his domicile, a right of every swiss resident. you need to change the wording accordingly or come up with different source. By the way, a 600m USD investment is reason enough to change your domicile. Furthermore, the article reports that LV acquired around 35% of the company from Christian Kälin of Henley and Partner in December 2013 (nominal Value >4m CHF, market value higher). Kälin confirms as third party source that he received payment. In addition to that, Diners and Degen were settled which means they received some sort of payment. Why would he have settled if his intention was to flee to St.Kitts? you might not familiar with the german language but please have better translation in your research. (Swisstruth— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1205:502c:e8d0:e1d0:ecfc:ee30:6f45 (talk • contribs)

First off, please sign your comments along with wikipedia policy you do this by inserting four tildes ~ inside of parentheses at the end. In response to your comment, although I am fluent in German that is not necessary as this matter has been reported in English language publications cited within the article. How would you translate 'abgetaucht' and "flucht" seems like fled is a nice way to put it. [11] and [12] among others.

are you really basing yourself on blick.ch sources, THE yellow press in Switzerland and do not accept weltwoche? this is wrong an unacceptable. Furthermore you are confusing debts with claims. since you pretend to understand germen: "Betreibung" is not debt but a claim, how come you refer to debts? (Swisstruth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

also are you one individual or several individuals?(Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC))

@Mostlyoksorta: I think you should take position to my previous questions: why is this LV case relevant to the ASW History section? I am starting to question your intentions...(Swisstruth (talk)

ok first off do not insert comments in the middle of min, you should put them after mine. Second, sign your comments. Third, it's not a problem with my German, but your English. As I have said I cited English language sources which refer to debt. The German sources to Flucht. And by the way Betreibung does mean debt in English. This is my last comment to you on this topic, please provide sources saying the debt is paid off you believe it was. And stop the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith. Stop sock puppeting . Don'accuse editors and admins of bad faith. Finally use reliable sources. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC))

It is impossible to have a Betreibung without a debt (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC))

@Mostlyoksorta: your last statement is wrong and proof of your lack of knowledge, please get experts on the topic. A Betreibung is a claim anyone can have against anyone without any evidence in Switzerland, please don't doubt my academic and professional background (Swisstruth (talk)

@Mostlyoksorta: enough dancing around the topic and hiding behind Wikipedia rules: answer the question, what is your Agenda if not personal in having LV in company history?

He is the owner of asmallworld, the information provided is relevant, backed by multiple reliable sources, and accurate as far as the sources are concerned that it is why it is in the article. Please note I did not create the company history section, it has been in the article for years - and has been deemed relevant for years. The information on the current owner was updated as it became available. There is no personal agenda, this is just the most current relevant material backed by reliable sources. If you have reliable sources the provide newer more relevant information please provide those sources. The Weltwoche source is not reliable for the reasons mentioned above - to wit it is written by asmallworld member who was invited to 'champagne, cigars, and an infinity pool on St. Kitts' with the subject, and does not provide any third party verifiable sources to contradict the dozens of newspaper articles on this topic. At most it includes a comment by the subject that he "could pay off his debts." This is not a reliable source, and does not state that he has paid off his debts. A subject's own self-serving statements about themselves are not reliable sources, see Richard Nixon "I am not a crook." (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

@Mostlyoksorta: you CAN NOT talk about debt, this terminology is incorrect and wrong, please change. Claims are no debt. In this case no judgment was passed. Furthermore, they have been settled. your sources are yellow press based, don't you think Wikipedia should be better? you are a shame to this community pursuing a personal agenda (Swisstruth (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

Inexistant sources

External link / source n° 21 is inexistent, please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.252.2 (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ASmallWorld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140409012009/https://www.asmallworld.com/about_privileges?type=travel to https://www.asmallworld.com/about_privileges?type=travel

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

---

ASmallWorld → ASMALLWORLD – The name stylised as 'aSmallWorld' fell out of use in the late 2000s, since which time its been ASMALLWORLD RoryASW (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). RoryASW (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies in advance if i'm committing some faux pas, but i'm keen to see if we can make this change.

I understand that 'official names' are not necessarily used for article titles, but I would argue that 'aSmallWorld' is already an unusually styled title. I think we would prefer 'ASMALLWORLD' ideally but would be happy with 'asmallworld' which I guess would be capitalised 'Asmallworld'.

Note: WikiProject Websites has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@RoryASW: Do you have a WP:COI here? 162 etc. (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Rory confirmed at the technical request that they work at ASW. SilverLocust 💬 15:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Asmallworld—blindlynx 14:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Blindlynx Agreed, we shouldn't be using camel case in the name either. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM, MOS:ALLCAPS: The all-caps is obviously promotional. As far as I can tell, independent sources have not consistently used the all-caps. All-lowercase also seems artificially promotional. Wikipedia tends to resist such stylisms. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per BarrelProof. If this organization's name has no spacing, then per our manual of style it should be moved to Asmallworld.~TPW 14:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. While there was disagreement over which capitalization would be most in keeping with policy, a consensus was reached that the camel-case format is the most readable version of the title. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

---

ASmallWorld → Asmallworld – As noted above, WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM, and MOS:ALLCAPS indicate that we should not use an all-caps format, even though that's the common usage. Since common usage is no longer the camel case styling, MOS:CAMELCASE indicates that we should no longer use camel case as the title of the article or in the prose. —C.Fred (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Edward-Woodrow • talk 13:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:TITLETM, MOS:TM, MOS:ALLCAPS: The all-lowercase form is obviously promotional. As far as I can tell, independent sources have not consistently used the all-lowercase. Just like all-caps, all-lowercase seems artificially promotional. Wikipedia tends to resist such stylisms. The current mixed case is more like ordinary English, or at least more like ordinary English-language corporate naming, than all-lowercase. Ordinary English does not mash strings of words together without putting spaces between them, and the capital letters provide a clue of how to read it (especially for a proper name). An RM for this topic was just closed as not moved. Let's stick with that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  @BarrelProof The RM considered all caps and rejected that. It made mention of going to all lowercase but didn't seem to formally consider it. I see your point about the camel case increasing readability. (Aside: Should Hansainvest in the infobox then be rendered as HansaInvest? They stylize in all caps.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Unsure on the aside. I also see "Hansa Invest" and "Hansa Investment Company Limited" here. I didn't find independent sourcing. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.