Talk:Be2

Hello everybody,

This is a paid edit. I speak on behalf of be2 and ask you why this article is provided with such poor sources. Many sources contradict the rules of Wikipedia or are not verifiable at all.

To the details:

1. Reference 1: Does not work. See here.
2. Reference 2: It suggests that one can find an article but it was behind a payment barrier, but the link no longer exists. Nobody can check what was stated in this article. There was a link to the page on site New Media Age from en.wikipedia.org which referred to the article on this site. See here . Now this domain / page is known as "econsultancy.com". See here. If the earlier article from New Age Media is still available, I do not know. In any case, reference 2 of the Wikipedia article refers to something that apparently can not be checked
3. Reference 5. The link leads to a blog that is already anti-be2 by its title and absolutely inadmissible.
4. Reference 6: The link leads to a user forum using non verified member reviews which is not permitted under Wikipedia's rules. There everyone can post something.
5. Reference 7: The link leads to LinkedIn accounts which are not allowed because Robert or Andreas could claim anything about themselves, therefore it is not permitted under Wikipedia rules. If this link were to be allowed, it should lead to the company be2 on LinkedIn, however that would not be a reliable source for Wikipedia because anything could be written and would be of similar quality as Facebook, it is therefore unusable.
6. Reference 8: This link refers to the Financial Times Germany (FTD) which is a reliable source. Unfortunately, the article can not be viewed via the specified link.
7. Reference 9. The link is available. The statement made by the Wikipedia article in this footnote, strictly speaking, cannot be upheld. Robert does not speak about the Italian market, but only of his studies in Italy. Spain is not directly referred to rather something different: Spanish-speaking countries. Whether the source is good enough according to the standards of en.wikipedia.org is doubtful. It is a borderline case and probably is not acceptable. Important: The comments which are written below the article are absolutely irrelevant to Wikipedia.
8. Reference 10. The statement in this reference is not substantiated by the link. It leads to the welcome page of be2. This is absolutely inadmissible according to Wikipedia rules.
9. Reference 11: This leads to a page that no longer exists, namely to top10irishdatingsites.org. You can view the page which was linked at archive.org, see here. This looks like any website that claims to compare dating sites. Whether that was a reliable comparison is completely unclear. The imprint cannot be found in archive.org either. This link is not appropriate for Wikipedia.
10. Reference 12: The link works. Again, we have a site where dating sites are compared. If I counted correctly there are 6, which is not much. The review was carried out by a certain "Gina Linn". Who is that? Where are the contact details of the site? Even this document is not appropriate, if one follows Wikipedia rules.
11. Reference 13: There is no direct link. Possibly it is forbidden by en.wikipedia.org to put a link on this page. If you use Google it still leads to the same place, namely here. Who is doing this review? There is no address / contact details on the website. Under "About us" you can find this. The introductory sentence is: "We are three regular guys." Anonymous men making statements on the internet - is that acceptable for Wikipedia? Never!
12. See my comments for reference 5. Absolutely inadmissible.
13. Reference 15: Also leads to a user forum. This is absolutely inadmissible according to Wikipedia rules.
14. See my comments for reference 6. Absolutely inadmissible.
15. Reference 17: The link works but leads to another user forum. The whole thing takes place on the page scambook.com. For details look here here and read it, it is a fraudster.
16. Reference 18: The link works, however it does not prove the statement that he is intending to claim ("In particular, The pricing of Premium Memberships are regular causes for complaint."). The claim is therefore a false claim
17. Reference 19. This looks respectable at first glance: The Guardian. However, it's just a letter to the editor with a short reply. Anyone can write a letter to an editor. The evidence that should be provided by this letter is not adequately supported. As a source for Wikipedia, something like this is not suitable.
18. Reference 21: The link works. As a proof of the statement (where is be2 represented?) it is doubtful. Why? Because it's the be2 page used as evidence. This is often (not always) considered a rule violation.
19. Reference 22: The link works. The article wants to show the proximity of all sites and does that with address matching. But it doesn't work this way. A better source must be used, such as media reports, which list Insparx platforms. From my point of view, this link and the alleged statement is "original research" and speculation contradicts Wikipedia's rules.
20. Reference 24 to reference 26: Some companies which Robert has co-founded or directed are listed here. This has nothing to do with the Lemma. This should be part of an article about Robert (and would need to be much better documented). It does not belong here. The source angel.co is questionable, because for example, who made the statement on the business of Robert? Robert himself? The terms indicate that on this job search page everyone is responsible for their own information. This is fine on the angel.co page, however for Wikipedia it is not sufficient, it's Robert's own statement and not a report which can be considered reliable.

To put it in a nutshell: In its current state the article is not sufficiently proven by any source. Munich-Center (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of attack page materiel.

I have removed a significant amount of either unsourced or unreliably sourced text, but I cannot ascertain if the non-English sources are reliable. (sidenote: reliable sources definitely do say that Be2 is a scam; I am not contesting that) ArkayusMako (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is still based on questionable sources

---

Hello,

First of all, thank you very much for the first answers to my questions. But in my opinion this article still has very big weaknesses.

• be2 is not a company that has other brands. There are sister companies. Whether such a thing belongs in an article about be2 is questionable.
• Also the section "Related Company (sic!)" does not fit. These companies deal with other issues. Such information is rather something for an article about Robert Wuttke, but I guess he is certainly not relevant for a Wikipedia article. The sources for all this information are original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Or is it?
• The statement about Sweden is completely unsupported.
• To some footnotes = sources for this article (this article version applies):
  • Reference 2 cannot be checked. The content is not accessible in the web archive, as everything was or is behind a paywall.
  • Footnote 3 leads to nowhere. LinkedIn pages are not reliable sources anyway.
  • Footnote 4 also leads to nowhere. The FTD no longer exists. This newspaper has been withdrawn from the market. One cannot check whether the FTD article wrote something about Italy or Spain.
  • Footnote 8 leads to a user forum (datingscams.co.uk) where anyone can say anything. This is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia.
  • Footnote 9 is simply strange. A possible fraudulent site (ScamBook) is cited as the source. Is such a thing reliable? Please note:

"In 2013, Scambook was investigated by the Illinois attorney general's office for fraudulent trading. The FBI received thousands of complaints from both companies and consumers about Scambook's unethical activities and lack of transparency.[17] Investigations alleged that Scambook would post fraudulent complaints about companies and individuals. Companies were then expected to subscribe to Scambook's business resolve service, where they effectively had to pay a monthly fee in order to remove the complaints made against them.[10][17] The Chicago Better Business Bureau gave Scambook an F rating and issued a red alert against the company due to a pattern of unresolved complaints, and the fact that, in Chicago, there was no office at the address listed for the company.[17][20] (Source = section in the entry about A Bachman)

• • In the link of footnote 10 there is no word about "regular causes for complaint". It's fiction.
  • I have already commented on footnote 11: It looks respectable at first glance: The Guardian. However, it's just a letter to the editor with a short reply. Anyone can write a letter to an editor. The evidence that should be provided by this letter is not adequately supported. As a source for Wikipedia, something like this is not suitable.

All facts, which are not documented with reliable sources or which are fictitious, should be deleted in my opinion. Is anyone taking on this task? Thank you in advance. Munich-Center (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC) (on behalf of be2 / paid editing)

• I deleted a bunch of poorly sourced garbage on both ends of the spectrum. The criticisms were sourced to patently unreliable sources or refspam. And the puffery was the same. Praxidicae (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)