Talk:SMS.ac, Inc.

Top

68.231.54.225 keeps reverting this page to a near advertisement of sms.ac. Wouldn't surprise me if it's a vigilante for the company. claviola (talk to me) 13:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe so too, I think there may be something questionable about this company. When I saw a lot of references to sms.ac technology and "™" plus all of the other 7-8 contributions in this article about the company were erased, I understood it to be an andvertisement too. CaribDigita 16:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

If the page with correct information is not acceptable then the page should not exist.

To make this a forum for a disgruntled former employee is not a proper use of Wikipedia.

Please stop vandalizing this page. I'm not a former employee, just an internet user who is/was sick of their "business model". If you feel like the current page is biased then edit it appropriately, but take under consideration the fact that nearly everyone thinks or is pretty damn sure that sms.ac = scams. claviola (talk to me) 17:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the person who mentioned the above is the same person that added "A disgruntled former employee alleges that ..." to the page (which i changed to "it is alleged"). I assume this because of the remarkable similarity, and because there is no other way to identify the anonymous pro-SMS.ac editor. Do you have proper evidence for this claim of a "disgruntled former employee"s allegations? If that's the case, you (or the company) must better sort it out in the court as a libel case than to bring your problems with individuals in to the page. Greenleaf 07:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You have an interesting but not relevant opinion on that subject.

The page should contain facts, rather than your opinion (this is supposed to be an encyclopedia) or the page should not exist if the facts appear to be too much of an advertisement.

OK, time to wiggle out the facts. Opinions aside, did anyone else here like myself get solicited by one of SMS.ac's robots to join your contact list and/or did it start sending you IMs that cost money???

I appear to have had one in my buddy list that sent me Instant Messages and then clearly stated in the profile "I'm not real but my 4000 + friends are." Anyone else? CaribDigita 20:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Here are three examples of pages about companies which are included here in Wikipedia:

Qualcomm Intel Motorola

Sms.ac is a company like those and there is legitimate information available about the company from a variety of sources. Some of that information was included here but has been over-written by your opinion and your diatribe.

What part is an "attack"???

I saw things like the following removed. "In recent months some internet users have complained of the way the SMS.ac website charges fees to a customers' cell phones and some accusations have surfaced about SMS.ac being possibly fraudulent in nature. Upon signing up for the service a customer is asked to enter their username and password to online email services such as Yahoo Mail, Hotmail, Gmail and others. An email is then sent to all contacts in a user's address book as if sent by the customer, asking contacts to join SMS.ac's potentially fee-based system. SMS.ac will continue to send emails until these contacts in the address book ask SMS.ac to be opted out of the mass-marketing or they actually sign-up???"

That line sounds somewhat similar to the portion about "Controversy" in the Intel profile which you brought up as being what you consider an exemplary corporate profile. I'm certain from Intel's standpoint that "Controversy" is a unflatering aspect of that profile but it certainly wasn't censored out. Wikipedia is known for telling things in the short-and-sweet method, for example see [Publisher's Clearing House]. CaribDigita 22:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of useful and worthwhile information in the Intel page in addition to that one negative rant listed under "controversy." There are much more serious problems at Intel which could be brought up but have not been.

What you have tried to do here is delete any information about the company sms.ac itself and put only your opinion, which is worthy of less than a single line item in a description of the company, its products and services, the founders, a description of the actual business model (not your imagined one) the money back guarantee, and the processes for obtaining customer support for any perceived wrongs which you have suffered.

Wikipedia is not a platform for your personal venting about imagined wrongs.

Remove the page or include legitimate, verified information about the company.

The page is currently at that state and I believe that the changes you are making would constitute "vandalism" under this definition:

Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia.

WP:Vandalism seems to disagree with you by stating that blanking pages is childish vandalism. I urge you to edit this page and add whatever factual, non-worshipping information you have about the company that isn't copied from their press releases or spamvertisements such as "SMS.ac is host to the largest community of mobile phone users in the world. Through its global initiatives, SMS.ac is igniting the widespread adoption and use of wireless data." claviola (talk to me) 20:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The current page is one paragraph of company info, followed by how-not to be scammed by the company. Sounds fishy eh? Intel's profile is not a half page of how not to get what a user didn't intend to get... CaribDigita 22:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

More vandalism

Seems like our anonymous friend (or should I just call him Bill?) is at it again, this time reverting any and all changes to the page to the version he feels is definitive. I've tried to be more neutral and to let the unbased claims remain (except for the infomercial ones), but he keeps on completely throwing out everyone's changes. claviola (talk to me) 18:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This user Claviola apparently has to read up on NPOV. The diatribe he has been trying to post here is clearly not neutral and takes a highly negative tone.

NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"

So saying things such as "SMS.ac, Inc. is a mobile data communications company whose proprietary MMSbox™ platform enables the interoperable exchange of mobile multimedia (MMS and SMS) and micro-transaction billing across all mobile standards, protocols and the Internet. A demonstration of the MMSbox platform is available at www.sms.ac." is neutral? Notice my use of 'allege', 'say' and all. Is the tone negative? Yes, but it's under the controversy section.

Again, stop reverting the page to the version which you consider "definitive" as there is no such thing on Wikipedia. Please respect my changes by not throwing them away entirely. Please do not revert the entire page back to your version. Please make whichever changes you feel make this article fail the NPOV check. Feel free to use my talk page.

Thanks. claviola (talk to me) 18:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Just one other thing -- you mentioned on your edit summary that you were going to continue the discussion about NPOV, but you keep throwing out other people's contributions to the article. I've reverted the article again, but as I've hit the WP:3RR limit already I'll stop today. I just wish you'd realize that you can't rule this page. claviola (talk to me) 18:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

++++++++++++

I suppose that you consider this to be non-negative and neutral?

I don't see this kind of vitriol over in Plaxo or in Yahoo! or Yahoo! Groups which have used permission based marketing to grow their networks of users.

Maybe you should look carefully. I didn't insert all of the threads in which dozens of people besides the original submitter/blogger because there's no need to include each and every case of "I signed up, got charged for things I didn't opt in to and left", but there are plenty of links if you use google and search for "sms.ac spam" and/or "sms.ac scam". I even saw one particular case that really got me upset of a kid losing a huge amount of money thanks to the "service". claviola (talk to me) 20:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I find that if you ask friends their perception of SMS you will tend to get a flow of negative things stated... I haven't found anyone happy with it... That's not for me to decide how people view the service. Listen to them and most of the things you'll hear is what are on the hundreds of newsgroups, forums, posting services, etc. one can find on google. I feel there are something fishy about the company, and these claims, because I've gotten approached on the service MYself by these talking 'robots'. Which registered a fee to me when I first signed up.... Those robots-- I did NOT opt-in to... I also wanted to know why when I signed up, the service kept insisting that I sign up my Hotmail and other email accounts. Other friends of mine that signed up were telling me not-only are they not---- using the service any longer, the invites I continued to receive are being auto-sent without their actions or my consent. SMS.ac needs to clean up there service. If anything stated in this article was wrong it wouldn't continue to be edited in the way it was by about 2 dozen individuals. I hate to admit it but this company has got to be a scam. The only--- person on all of Wikipedia to think this company is legit is user 68.231.54.225 CaribDigita 22:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

sms.ac sucks

This company is nice. It kept sending me message to join for a month and finally I can not beat it and registered. But as soon as I discovered it charged me without notifying me, I canceled my account. STAY AWAY!! I'm an idiot that can't read, but I like to blame others for my lack of intelligence.

-- I agree with the above, I have had several friends (and therefore emails sent to me) by this service, and have read several reports about how this is a mobile community. I'm giving this article a major re-write right now and putting it on my watchlist. Our buddy from SMS will have me to contend with now. Themindset 07:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

identity of 58.231.54.225

I invite anyone who has the time, to do a traceroute of 58.231.54.225 . Then do a traceroute of SMS.ac . You will find an interesting parallel between the two, which may go towards explaining the rather "pro-corporate" edits of this particular IP address. Themindset 09:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This is turning into a spam-fest by sms.ac haters.

Is that the basic concept of wikipedia - to give a platform for hate speech and link spam?

• Or independent sources to back-up the general concensus about SMS.ac. It all depends how you look at it. What do others think? CaribDigita 00:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• To qualify this as hate speech is quite laughable. Please sign your comments, and do not put a NPOV tag where it doesn't belong. This article contains a very straightforward description of the company, and all criticism is in the appropriate section. The fact that your IP traces to the same servers as SMS.ac is not very becoming. Themindset 01:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• please, Mr. Anonymous, sir, do all of us a favour and sign your comments. Also use some sort of indentation or formatting to your posts so that readers can easily see where your comments start and where they end. You are just adding your text to the end of an opposing viewpoint. Greenleaf 06:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC

Seen as how this is a case of a website persistently editing its own article, I've posted an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, natural science, and technology. Themindset 06:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

As expected, our anonymous friend has contributed there --debate and personal attack on Themindset-- ignoring the plain clear guidelines posted. I do not delete that entry because I'm not much clear about the editing policy on RFC pages. Anyway it won't do much harm, because anyone who uses that page for the intended use will end up here. Greenleaf 06:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the NPOV tag from this talk page, as it is improbable that a talk page will ever have a neutral point of view, since it's meant for discussion of the actual article. claviola (talk to me) 20:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Changes: 02:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

User:68.101.166.109 removed a whole lot from the page without citing reasons. I revert is back. Removing large blocks from pages without any good reason given may be thought of as vandalism, or, at best, POV. Anyone who would think that would also be convinced of it, because the user added a press release from the same company to the now-empty list. I don't vouch for each of the links listed in the reverted version, but since no reason was given for deleting a whole block of links, I think the revert is justified - that ip does not seem to have done any contributions elsewhere either.

User:68.101.166.109, please discuss your edits in talk page, if they include possibly controversial and large changes. If you think you are unfairly treated, there are many ways you can act, from RFCs to complaint to admins to VfDs: you don't have to act the way vandals do. Greenleaf 02:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Warning to User:68.101.166.109

Please stop vandalism in this talk page and related article. You started as a genuine editor claiming POVs and all that, but when you fail in proving your points you seem to have resorted to childish pathetic vandalist acts of destruction. This includes changing the external links to wrong non-working links, and changing OTHER user's comments. We will have no other option than to report you for vandalism.

If you have to resort to this kind of cheap vandalism to make your point, chances are, sir, that your point was a cheap one to begin with. Try to act like a gentleman even in the possible case you are not a one. Nobody likes idiots, especially when they vandalize public resources. Thanks. Greenleaf 05:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

User Themindset has lost all sense of NPOV and has embarked on an agenda to create a negative impression of this company regardless of the actual facts. He continues to remove any links and any information about this company and its products and services which is not in a negative light.

This page has clearly been taken over be editors who do not have a neutral point of view and will not allow anything non-negative to be posted here. Where are the Wiki-Police when you need them?

(Unsigned coment by User:68.231.54.18)

sms.ac = a scam. Thats not a Point of View.

That's not a POV when much of the Internet is saying this, Yahoo and Google now filters sms.ac's email into the spam-mailbox and other users on Wikipedia have had problems with that company. It's a global concensus that the company is just bad. Perhaps the company wants to clean up their act, good for them but for right now everyone understands and agrees the company is out to do bad. References in this article have been established. It's not a point of view its fact. There's plenty of references on the page. CaribDigita 18:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This is something new: I believed they do actually stop sending unwanted sms texts from strangers once you send a STOP message (which also costs some premium amount) but after a gap of few months, yesterday I got yet another text from a stranger courtesy of sms.ac. Is it possible at all to trust the company to at least honour the unsubscribe? Is there no law in this land (UK or elsewhere), or some users forum that can stop them? Nondualist 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

CarbDigital's pov is not the only legitimate Point of View.

Read the above to see why NPOV is being violated repeatedly. Information about the services provided by this company has been deleted and negative information which is subjective opinion of a few bloggers has been portrayed as fact. 68.231.54.18 19:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

3 revert rule broken

Our anonymous friend has broken the 3-revert rule. Please post comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:68.231.54.18. Themindset 20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The last one wasn't a revert, he/she just added a NPOV tag. Sasquatcht|c 23:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And the page is still not written with an NPOV 68.231.54.18 00:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And how's about you explain why, Mr. Anon, or -- guess what? -- the tag goes. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Easy enough to explain.

All negative items are included and preserved and any items about the actual company and the products and services of that company have been removed by vandals.

68.231.54.18 02:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not an explanation, that's a rationalization. Try again. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Here are a couple of quotes form the NPOV description which are clearly being violated.

"Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate."

Nothing positive about this company has been allowed to remain posted here.

"An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so." 68.231.54.18 05:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The section called Services describes the company. What you are adding is corporate propaganda, and is not encyclopedic. That kind of fluff information is available on the sms.ac website, which the article links to at the bottom. Now, something that has a few of us curious: what is your motivation here, do you work or invest in this company? Themindset 09:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The section called Services does not describe the services which are provided by the company. I added three of those services. You removed them. You continue to include only negative links and negative information about the company.

What is your motivation for continually violating one of the most basic policies of Wikipedia? 68.231.54.18 14:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me sir, but I did not write the article, or insert those links. My question to you was an honest one, I really want to know. Your question to me is disingenuous, any answer implies I am "violating" principles. Please be more honest and constructive. If you are honestly asking my motivation, well it's to make sure that this article does not get hijacked by one user who seems to have a bias for this company.

I attempted to answer your question, can you attempt to answer mine? Themindset 19:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You and Cardigital have been the primary drivers for keeping this article as a hate piece against this company. I am merely asking why you feel that it meets the NPOV guidelines to have 10-12 negative links as the only links allowed to be posted here? You have been extremely negative in the Talk page as have all of the other editors.

It is quite obvious that the content of the links section is innappropriate and most of those links should be removed. All over Wikipedia, links to sites like those get removed on a regular basis and are called what they are -- link spam. Those bloggers are taking advantage of Wikipedia and editors like you are letting them do it.

68.231.54.18 21:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The least neutral editor on Wikipedia is at it again.

To quote the Scandals category page: "Falsely alleged scandals can lead to a witch-hunt against the innocent."

68.231.54.18 16:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• QUOTE: "A scandal is a widely publicized incident involving ***allegations*** of wrong-doing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, or the product of **false** allegations, or a mixture of both."

Understand now? an ***allegation*** means something may or may**not** be real just that it's been talked about before. And also, check your facts. I haven't been doing any reverting on this article in a LONG--------- time. Namely it was when you first came to this article and started vandalizing the article by throwing out absolutely **everything** anybody put in this article except yourself. I haven't reverted anything since matters were put to a consensus on the talk page which you've constantly mentioned *my* name to draw me back into this. If anything--- I believe you have been sitting there over at SMS.ac and reverting everyone elses comments including mine. I've watched you censor people on a daily basis and they in turn revert you back.

As far as the idea of everyone reviewing my edits? Feel free! Lately I've contributed to Yahoo!, Google, GMail, and Verizon among others and I've gladly accepted criticism whenever it came. Do you folks at SMS.ac accept the same-- especially for all the **percieved** wrong's plastered all over the Internet that are attributed to your name? Perhaps that's why the general consensus is that Sms.ac is out to dope people? I have not 'removed your links' either. I suggest you go review your story yet again. CaribDigita 03:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, deleted a "positive" link from some Malaysian magazine because it claimed some "positive" thing about the site, like providing free out going SMSes in excahnge for advertising SMSes, which the SMS.ac site does not seem to claim to do. People can have opinions, but that was not an opinion. It was a verifiable fact, and if it does not verify to be true, then it must be removed. If you insist in keeping that link, just show where SMS.ac site says so, and add that as a fact.

I usually let others talk for themselves, but just have a look at CaribDigita's edit history and that of Themindset, and yours own. That will hopefully help resolve for good, who, if any, of you three really has an agenda here. I was just pushed to point this out by your repetitive personal attacks. If you still think you are unduly treated, as I've said before there are other ways to handle them than calling names such as "least neutral editor". How many of all non-neutral editors have you checked out so far in wikipedia? Greenleaf 10:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like there are at least four links to non existent content on this page. 68.231.54.18 15:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Its funny just to watch SMS.ac / 68.xx.xx.xx chip away at this article.

As SMS.ac tries to erase their own history.

Yet, all one must do is look at the Internet to see all of the unhappy users getting spammed by this company. I've not touched this article in months and it's funny- you just see 68.xx.xx.xx pop his/her head up and say something like "I'm removing random '_blank_' from the article." days later a resurface becomes visible in my watched files. With another claim to "removal of link-spam" or something.

Sheesh SMS.ac, you've got to be one psycho company if all you-do is charge fees to people's cell phones -and when these persons complain about it, you chase them off the Internet.

I'd stay clear of this company ppl. hear? CaribDigita 23:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I only wanted to post here to support all the other editors acknowledging problems with Sms.ac services. Not only is the article adequately neutral, but there comes a point where one can't help but invoke a slightly negative portrayal of the subject in the article simply by virtue of the subjects actions. MondoManDevout 11:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, on second thought . . .

Believe me, I have no love for this company or its services. But the article does seem to be slightly and unnecessarily negative. For instance, the "This article is part of the spamming series of articles" feature. And maybe we should get rid of a couple of the blatantly negative links, and instead keep the Google search link up of SMS.ac, so viewers can see for themselves how many of the customers view the company. Everything else looks perfect, imo. MondoManDevout 07:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Continued addition of highly negative spam links from commercial entities like "banpremiumsms.com" has once again converted this into a "hit piece" against this company.

Blog spammers are bad enough. Why do you continue to allow these wikipedia link spammers to flourish? 68.231.54.18 20:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So wait, you actually think that it is Wikipedia(the website) that created the overwhelmingly negative aura on the Internet about this company sms.ac? So you contend these people had nothing else better to do then to visit Wikipedia and fabricate stories about the crooked goings on at SMS.ac? CaribDigita 20:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as an anonnymous user you enjoy fewer priveledges on this site. I encourage you to create a user name, and perhaps identify the motivation for defending SMS so valiantly. Otherwise, I will vigilantly revert your efforts at white-washing this article. Themindset 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

BanPremiumSMS.Com has been taken down by their ISP as a result of SMS.ac's actions. They have also the owner of this site with a copyright lawsuit... They really do wish to keep erasing their ongoing history. -Raga 20:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

He calls me a spammer! His edit of the page is tagged with:

68.231.54.18 (Talk) - (spammer Raga is back.)

Where's the spam, 68.xx? It's a perfectly legitimate report! Raga 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous, obviously an employee/er from SMS.AC. Themindset 22:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that "banpremiumsms.com" is not a commerical entity as stated previously (user 68.231.54.18) and I can confirm that the site is facing legal threats from SMS.AC at present. 60.52.16.22 09:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

They should backup their website and look at getting a new hosting provider and providing a copy to them of other instances of what Sms.ac does interms of filing fake threats against personal websites or... Banpremiumsms.com should consider having their own webserver. If all else fails, get a webhosting provider in another country... SMS.ac's jurisdiction is limited to the United States unless they take it to the U.N. CaribDigita 13:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, SMS.ac has contacted a Finnish lawyer, who has threatened to sue me over my site over unspecified copyright violations. Read the details. I'll be sure to send them a bill if I ever hear from them again. Raga 12:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Look up "cease decist sms.ac" or "cease desist sms.ac" on google.com and you'll have all the proof you need for that lawyer about SMS.ac sending tons of those threats to people. CaribDigita 13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

68.231.54.18 22:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC) so up above, Raga specifies that he actually is just a link spammer, here to promote his website. He will probably make lots of money from Google Adsense. I thought link spamming was against the terms of service here.

I've written a heck of a lot more to Wiki than you have, 68.XXX. Sign up with a real name for starters and identify yourself, gain some credibility. Let's see... I've made a grand total of $1.48 with those ads over the last month - wah! Raga 10:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV complaints

68.231.54.18 05:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Admitted Link spammer Raja is making a mockery of this page. Needs to be disciplined.

68.231.54.18 05:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Continuously non-neutral and highly biased negative editors CaribDigita and Themindset continue to violate the NPOV policy of Wikipedia and continue to revert this page to preserve the NPOV violations and to suppress any indications of their lack of neutrality and their rabid, mindless, negative bias.

Well, you certainly are a humorous fellow. What's with this SMS.Ac obsession of yours! You have to be working for them!! When I add a link, I'm a plain link spammer, and when I add to the text, I'm making a mockery of the page. Dispute the statements there, don't just rant. Feel free to present other points of view - we aren't going to edit them away.

• Internet blogs feature dozens of articles describing how customers felt the pay-for services they were subscribed to were not clearly communicated to them.

Is the above not true?

• ... suggesting that the company may still have some miles to cover before reaching the ideals of its own declaration.

If there is confusion, it suggests that communication is not sufficiently clear.

• While some users have expressed confusion over the company's refund process

Want me to supply links to back this up?

• ...there are no documented incidents where the promised refunds up to 50 premium SMS:s from the initial 30-day period would have been refused.

I haven't seen any. Let me know if there are some. -- Raga 21:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• ...there are no documented incidents where the promised refunds up to 50 premium SMS:s from the initial 30-day period would have been refused.

I haven't seen any. Let me know if there are some. -- Raga 21:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV debate been beaten to death on this? I remember even before I took a voluntary 6 months off this article the NPOV-alarm was sounded and main other neutral editors on wikipedia overlooked the article... Everyone agreed that the article had actual evidence to backup all claims, at which the folks over at SMS.as stated this was "A Hit Piece"... Just yesturday, I went to http://www.Alexa.com/ (The site ranking company) and the comments there said about SMS.ac are **pale** in comparison in comparison to this article. I don't know how the people over at SMS.ac can ever sleep at night.... CaribDigita 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

CaribDigita - do you rather mean that this Wikipedia-article is pale in comparison to the reviews? --Raga 08:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and restored

This was deleted as an attack page, but it has a long history- I think it just needed vandalism reverting, not deletion. Anyway, I restored it. Friday (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the admin perceived this page as an attack on the company SMS.AC? Even if that were so, shouldn't he be consulting the editors a little bit? It wasn't even tagged for speedy deletion. Themindset 18:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume it was a plain-old mistake. I left him a talk page note explaining why I restored. Friday (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of the Sms.ac page:

So the page was deleted, and it was restored. Here is the admin who did it, in the deletion log. I have asked them to explain themselves... either they had their account hacked, or they must have some other reason for having done it, but I'd like to know why. Subsequently User:68.231.54.18 tried to speedy delete this page on the grounds that it was a talk page for a page that didn't exist.[1]

Here is the section of the deletion log showing the admin who deleted Sms.ac:

1. 18:30, 31 May 2006 Royboycrashfan deleted "Sms.AC" (R1 content was: '#REDIRECT Sms.ac' (and the only contributor was 'Secfan'))
2. 18:29, 31 May 2006 Royboycrashfan deleted "SMS.AC" (R1 content was: '#REDIRECT Sms.ac' (and the only contributor was 'Secfan'))
3. 18:29, 31 May 2006 Royboycrashfan deleted "SMS.ac" (R1 content was: '#REDIRECT Sms.ac' (and the only contributor was 'Secfan'))
4. 18:29, 31 May 2006 AmiDaniel restored "PYRAMA" (Userfying)
5. 18:29, 31 May 2006 Royboycrashfan deleted "Sms.ac" (A6)

Like I said, I'm looking forward to User:Royboycrashfan's response. Themindset 17:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

68.231.54.18 18:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC) The page obviously meets the criteria for speedy deletion. It is not even thinly disquised and the editors who have co-opted it are highly negative and do not believe in the NPOV policy. (Read the page and the links. It is obious that this is an attack page, intended to disparage it's subject.)

If there are problems, we can fix them by editing the page. Friday (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

68.231.54.18That never worked before - that link spammer Raga and Themindset and Carbdigital are all dead set agains this company and want to spam all these links.

Go read their web sites - these are some of the most visous hate-mongers on the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.54.18 (talk • contribs)

these are some of the most visous hate-mongers on the Internet. Are you freankin' kidding me? We give balanced assessment and framed criticism of your company, and you are basically lumping us in with neo-nazi's and the KKK. Give me a break. PS - the fact that you won't identify who you are, or what your motivation is, tends to make you a little less than credible. Themindset 19:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

68.231.54.18 19:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC) " neo-nazi's and the KKK" Yes, you especially, appear to have a "little hitler" complex. Your are allowing link spammers to flourish here and that makes it obvious that you believe NPOV does not apply to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.54.18 (talk • contribs)

dude, please learn to sign at the end of your comments. It's getting tiresome. Anyways, you just took my joke and wore it; apaprently, defending an article from "corporate cleansing" earns me the distinction of being a mini-hitler. That's amazing, well done. Themindset 19:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The intent of this article has always been for it to be an attack piece. You have kept it alive and kept it from being cleaned up. Witness the earliest version of the article which was defended by your buddies before you came into the picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sms.ac&oldid=13739818

68.231.54.18 19:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

These aren't my buddies, I don't know them. We are all well-rounded wikipedia contributors. Except you. Themindset 19:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well rounded editors know that link spam gets removed. Why not here? Why not you? You and your buddies are promoting evil link spammers like Raga 68.231.54.18 19:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, i'm not talking to you anymore. You complain about neutrality, then throw words around like "evil" when describing other editors. This is no longer worth my energy. But don't worry, I will continue to safeguard this article. Themindset 19:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess my site is particularly unliked by 68.X and the company since I'm constantly mentioned. Following my personal experiences with the company, I have then studied the SMS.ac more than your average visitor, I guess that makes me an expert who can contribute something meaningful to this entry? I've even been in touch with their ombudsman and their lawyer. Please note that I've written content beyond adding a link to this page before you ever again refer to me as a link spammer. Speaking of which, I should add something to the entry about SMS.ac's legal threats to customers who complain in public about their experiences. There are quite a few out there. Would other editors be good with it if I added that in a non-biased way, just the facts as they are available for everyone to read? --Raga 00:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Raga, you get used to it... 68.xx.xx.xx called me the MOST biased user while I took ~ 6 months off this article. I did so just so that if there was a bias it would surely be cleared after I backed away from the article for a while. Clearly SMS.ac and their sock-puppets (namely 68.xx.xx.xx) kept on mentioning my name LONG after I stopped doing anything with/to this article. I only answered on the talk page but did not touch this article for like 6 months. 68.xx.xx.xx on the other-hand has done everything possible to push their own personal bias on here fully in contridiction to the majority of information on the Internet talking about this SMS.ac as a company. CaribDigita 22:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How to fix the article

It looks to me like this article does a very poor job of putting things into perspective, and it shouldn't be surprising if the company has objections to it. It's heavily focused on complaints about company practices that date back well over a year. Those complaints may well have been legitimate and the incident worth mentioning, but it appears that the company responded by adopting this "bill of rights" and presumably changing its practices. There doesn't seem to be that much in the way of more current complaints.

The article, however, not only leaves the impression that the problems are current and ongoing. Even worse, by the juxtaposition of addressing the "bill of rights" before the controversy, and failing to provide any chronological context, it gives an unwarranted impression of hypocrisy. One is left with the idea that the company is conducting highly questionable business practices despite its rhetoric, rather than seeing the rhetoric as part of a response to complaints and a change in practices. I suspect that the latter presentation would be much more accurate.

Considering the nature of the discussion, the article also does a poor job of tracing allegations to their sources, even if its language is couched in superficially neutral phrasing. The fact that it largely lacks references pointing to reliable sources has a great deal to do with this problem. Instead of the external links being a collection of every negative link about the company, appropriate ones should be cited directly if they're intended to support the information in the article ("Joi Ito complained that..."). Their corporate website also maintains an extensive collection of press clippings, not all of which are necessarily favorable to the company (although some certainly are uncritical marketing hype). This would be a good place to start. --Michael Snow 04:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A serious problem is that their "Bill of Rights" is hypocracy. They are still being reported in the media as being deceptive at best. [2][3] Coming in here and whitewashing their own article, sending threatening letters to bloggers, etc etc... Themindset 16:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The current reports have more to do with being marketed as "free" and then having additional charges tacked on. Whether that's hypocritical or not, it's quite different from the spam-like practices that the Controversy section focuses on. If you want to discuss current issues with the help of appropriate citations in the article, by all means do so, but in the meantime a serious reworking of the existing content is also necessary. The article could also stand to lose some of its editorializing language. --Michael Snow 16:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is limited to the Controversy section. I think that makes it legitimate. I think the controversy is an important part of SMS.AC's identity, and is encyclopedic. This is not supposed to read as a corporate profile. I do encourage you to rework the article, but this controversy must continue to be recorded in the article. Happy editing! Themindset 17:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes - someone needs to definitely look into dating the controversies. It's a messy article. For example, I understand that SMS.ac does not currently engage in the address-book spamming that has been reported, so it behooves to date the approximate period when the incidents occurred. It wouldn't be fair to have it look like it's all happening all the time. --Raga 00:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel I must note that due to the very serious nature of the actions SMS.ac has taken in the past it would be entirely inappropriate to remove them from an encylopedia, now or in the future, regardless of current company practice. Just as previous wars and war-crimes are well reported for all countries, so too must SMS.ac have the full story of their illegal activities reported forever more. 60.48.38.90 02:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Organized the controversy section - sources need to be added

I organized the sources-section under multiple heaings and added a couple of references. More references need to be added. As it was, the page was riddled with numerous "some say", "many claim" etc. statements. Dig those blogs and add references. They are out there. Someone should also write a bit more about the company and its services. How many employees do they have? What exactly are their services supposed to be? --Raga 13:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, when we have a controversy section, our thought should NEVER be "sources need to be added". Anytime anyone sees a negative comment tagged with "citation needed" the immediate response should be to INSTANTLY remove it. Best practices should be followed at all times.--Jimbo Wales 16:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have radically stubbed the article, please help rebuild it

I have radically stubbed the article so that we can rebuild it very carefully, line by line, with very strict attention paid to quality sourcing. I think that the article, as previously written, was a pretty good article, but I also think it will make a lot of sense for us to go through and source every claim very carefully... especially the negative claims.--Jimbo Wales 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you get a legal threat? I've been protecting this page from corporate white washing for months now (all by a single IP, that just today tried to tag the article for speedy deletion), it's more than a little disheartening that this is now done without discussion of why. Themindset 22:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

PS - please let me know what can and can't be included from before... From your friendly-neighbourhood-losing-faith-in-wikipedia-wikipedian. Themindset 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

He wrote here that he good a request to look at it, which he's acting on; that's different than a legal threat. The article should be written in a neutral point of view, without undue emphasis on negative aspects of the company. All claims, especially negative, should be sourced. I think that's all Jimbo's asking for. -- SCZenz 22:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, since when has it been a Wikipedia policy to just stub articles? I just did some substantial work in organizing and, to an extent, balancing the criticism section. I also added in some references. I do not appreciate it all just being stubbed out. In fact, I think it's ridiculous and serves little intelligible purpose at all.

For reference, the last version of the page prior to Jimbo's stubbing it is found here. --Raga 13:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been my policy and standard practice for a very long time. I encourage you to add back, carefully, all of the sourced material from the old version. This action is not a critique of the old version, per se, but rather a request that we do something we should ALWAYS stand ready to do: re-examine our work when we receive a complaint and make absolutely certain it is right.

What can and can't be included from before? Anything which is WP:NPOV and WP:NOR can and should be included. We need to see very tight attention paid to precise sourcing and our highest quality care that we do not reach beyond the sources. This is just basic Wikipedia 101 stuff. :)--Jimbo Wales 16:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Either a legal threat or a personal connection. - Xed 21:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Xed, as much as I'm miffed that Jimbo stubbed this article before consulting us, I really don't appreciate you coming in here to stalk him. Your comment is unhelpful, unthoughtful, and undesired. Themindset 21:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, your speculation fails WP:RS ;-) Actually, all articles about living people and companies should meet high standards of verifiability and neutral point of view. Many editors are striving towards these goals over the entire project. Stephen B Streater 21:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Appears I was right [4] - Xed 22:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing the negative claims

Here are some non-blog sources.

Sources for previous legal threats

• Legal threat on chillingeffects.org against ito.com. The company seeks to assert patent rights (with only a pending patent) against someone for "defamation". --John Nagle 22:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources for previous spamming

• Example of a spam from sms.ac. This one hit a mailing list for the Vanderbilt University Center for Structural Biology. --John Nagle 22:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Another example spam from sms.ac which reached a mailing list. --John Nagle 22:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

These demonstrate that they've sent two emails, not that they are spammers. The second link timed out; the first one explicitly says that SMS.ac is a "spam-free company" and that the email was only sent because a friend of hers sent it to her, so I'm not really sure how that, in fact, helps the case that they send out spam email. JDoorjam Talk 05:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, we are not in the business of deciding whether or not something is or is not spam. We can only report on what others have said. No primary research! :) I just removed a claim about this which had no sources. --Jimbo Wales 16:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Others

• Here's an article from the International Herald Tribune - it includes a note that Sprint, a major US cellphone service carrier has ceased to do business with sms.ac with the implication that this was over customer billing problems.
• A few stories in RCR Wireless News including "SMS.ac gains members, detractors as wireless learns viral marketing lessons" which talks partly about viral spam problems. Subscription is required, but I can pull the full text of the articles from the Factiva commercial database and email it if it anyone is interested Bwithh 17:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Page Move

I was WP:BOLD and moved this to Sms.ac, Inc. Nookdog 00:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLDER (yeah, so bold they don't even have a page for it yet) and moved it to SMS.ac, Inc. JDoorjam Talk 00:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Afd

I have closed this afd as a keeper. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sms.ac. I realize it was only on Afd for a day, but it sure looks to me like we'd already come to the right conclusion here. I'd rather see people work on improving the article than commenting on the Afd. Friday (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)