User talk:Mschweig

Response

Hello Mschweig, this is a response to your reply to Valhalla9.

MS> Was I wrong to delete your posted content? No. Val, you don't cite anything. How do you know Ameriprise is the 4th largest financial planning firm? Where did you learn that? How is the reader able to determine if they are the largest in the universe or if they are some Mom and Pop store that you run out of your garage? You see my point. You have to cite sources. Furthermore, you can't just say "according to JD power and associates." You have to provide a link to a website, or an actual source that someone can look up. Val, this is all stuff from junior-high when we had to write our first book reports.

Actually Mschweig, I didn't write that text! However unsatisfactory the citation about being the 4th largest financial planning firm, it is a citation that someone could look up.

If you look through the history, you'll see that this article has evolved over time, as a result of conflict between Ameriprise employees and Ameriprise critics, and with the help of other Wikipedia users. This process has resulted in a much better article - more accurate, more references cited, POV removed. I personally added numerous references to my contributions as a result of these interactions.

MS> From an outside point of view this page barely exists (compare it to the Star Wars page.)

Is the article perfect, or where it will eventually be? Absolutely not. This is a process, and having seen the dramatic improvements that have emerged in a short timespan, I look forward to seeing where the article will be a year from now. I expect it will be more detailed, with more specific citations. I have learned many things from others' contributions to the article of which I previously had no idea. The way this article has evolved and will evolve is through additions of citations and corrections when appropriate, rather than deletions which simply set us back to zero.

MS> You also said that this site was composed of the hard work of many ... Untrue, I see only few contributors here from a very tight-knit group all reverting or reposting the same information.

While a number of people have contributed to this article, I personally wish that more people would. Tight-knit group? I don't know any of the other contributors. You are mistaken regarding your comment about the reversions and repostings: if you look closely at the history you will see that some Ameriprise employees have tried to censor the article by deleting large sections. This is considered vandalism according to Wikipedia guidelines, and the reverts are simply corrections of this vandalism. The more meaningful contributions that have been made to the article are distinct from this vandalism.

MS> What sources cited? Ameriprisesuck.com, Ameriprise, and Morning Star. Val, that does not constitute "points of view." One is a hate site, one is the Company itself, and one is a company that works with Ameriprise. That is a terrible sampling. Unbiased, remember?

Wall Street Journal and Reuters articles, an SEC filing, specific cases and even a docket number, the fund research firm Morningstar, actual Ameriprise documents. If you have additional sources, your additions are welcome!

MS> The reason that I am writing back has to do with one thing in particular. "This is not a "[Hate site]" according to Wikipedia or according to any reasonable definition of the term." My response: DEFINE A HATE SITE, I apologize, but you fit the definition.

According to the corresponding Wikipedia article, "The term hate site is used by some to refer to websites that are said to promote hatred. Typically, these sites contain criticism of a specific race, religion, sexual behavior, or nationality." A complaint website that documents and discusses a company's policies and behaviors is entirely different in nature from this. Its merit derives from fact rather than prejudice.

MS> you post Adobe documents without validation. How is anyone supposed to know that those aren't just from competitors? What, it's not like you worked there or something?

I did not post Adobe documents; I linked to them. Nobody has doubted their authenticity, and I am sure that if they were not authentic we would hear pretty quickly from Ameriprise and its defenders.

Your recent deletion

Hello Mschweig, I am responding to your post addressed to 71.247.108.80.

You were wrong to delete the entire Ameriprise Financial article aside from the first paragraph. This article is the product of contributions from many people, has extensive references, and is to my knowledge very accurate. Your deletion is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. If there are specific statements in the article that you feel are wrong or incomplete, you are welcome to address them specifically and add more information, not delete the hard work of many.

MS> The reason I am contacting you is that I followed MS> the link that you posted and it brought me MS> to a "hate site." Are you aware of this?

I have included numerous links and references in my contributions to the article -- to articles, regulatory and legal filings, and more. Some links reference material that is posted on an Ameriprise complaint website. This is not a "[Hate site]" according to Wikipedia or according to any reasonable definition of the term. If you follow the links to specific content referenced on that website, those references contribute factual information to the discussion. They are also in keeping with Wikipedia policy. If you contest specific information in a specific link, add to the article!

Why not eliminate references to that site entirely? Because it has unique material not available elsewhere (to my knowledge). For example, the PDFs of the marketing scripts that Ameriprise has its staff use.

MS> Wikipedia is a forum for the posting of information by the public. MS> The entire balance of this encyclopedia is dependant on the unbiased, MS> factual, and sited information posted by the users.

If you follow the "history" of the article, and the specific references, you will see that the article is.

MS> It doesn't seem a leap of faith to assume you are also involved in that hate site. I hope this is not the case. Please respond if I owe an apology.

Actually, you are wrong. My one message board contribution to the Ameriprise complaint site came after a series of contributions to the Ameriprise article. This contribution shared my personal experience with Ameriprise.

MS> Doing that would compromise the integrity as much as what you are currently doing. I am sure you can see why it is important to remain unbiased.

Your statement is offensive: my contributions have not compromised anything's integrity. I have worked hard to present factual, unbiased information. It is not my fault that some of Ameriprise's methods don't lead it to be seen in the most attractive light.

Again, if there are specific contentions in the article that you feel are incorrect or incomplete, I encourage you to contribute your own material to supplement what is already here.

Image Tagging Image:Belle in hamper.jpeg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Belle in hamper.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 14:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:A model Shih Tzu with top Knot.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:A model Shih Tzu with top Knot.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:A_model_Shih_Tzu_with_top_knot.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:A_model_Shih_Tzu_with_top_knot.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text

Image:Belle_in_hamper.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Belle_in_hamper.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Belle_1.jpeg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Belle_1.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]