Talk:Select Portfolio Servicing/Archives/2017

Untitled

New contributor. Submitted article before providing enough support information. Everyone is welcome to review for accuracy and, by all means, add content. I have since added support information.

Just because something is "sourced" does not mean it is accurate. The BBB information is not accurate and that is why it is being deleted. I mean lets be realistic here I can source a million sites none of which have accurate information. Please do not restore the BBB information as it is inaccurate and very old. The Officers, Directors, Compliants etc... are outdated and not accurate. Furthermore, the intent of the original author is best evidenced in their first article in which they basically attempting to harm the company reputation with their biased viewpoints. I thought Wikipedia was POV free?

I will restore the information, sourcing it to the BBB. If the BBB is wrong, then provide a source to contradict them. Their info goes to 2006, it does not seem "very old" to me. You may think the original author wanted to hurt the company, but it seems that you have your own desire to hide detrimental information; wikipedia is indeed POV free. Sdedeo (tips) 23:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What evidence would convince you that the BBB reference is accurate? I got it straight from the Utah affiliate site. Furthermore, an SPS representative I spoke with confirmed this characterization, albeit dismissively and in the past tense. His contention was that new management "wasn't like that" and that he "wouldn't work for a company like that," though he conspicuously avoided mentioning his own hire date.

You say the BBB information is flawed, but I wonder if your position would not be better stated that you categorically discount the BBB and Internet as valid references. Of course, that would be absurd by any standard. And you speak of POV as if it's possible to not have one. The facts I put down were just that, even though on a personal level I might have said more. Did my personal opinion and experience color my perspective? Yes. Was what I ended up posting reflective of that? Perhaps, but not unreasonably so. Would you have me invent positive information? I admit(ted) my first submission was a kneejerk response to information I had found out. I'm pretty sure I just lacked the energy at that particular moment to be more verbose. Malice was not my intention at all. I do, however, question whether your edits lacked the taint of a strong POV or affiliation, not to mention unmitigated spite.

Were the situation reversed and I disagreed with your post, I would 1. not have taken it so personally, and 2. offered constructive criticism before whacking you to bits. Hopefully I would have made a friend and advanced Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the situation is what it is. If you have a problem with the information in the article, please let me know how you know it to be wrong. Nothing you've said to date has been supported. Either point me to the information you have or find a new hobby. Otherwise--in all due respect--you really do not have a leg to stand on.

You can, however, take heart that you have clearly demonstrated why contributions to Wikipedia are too problematic.--Carnesc 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Cut and paste". There goes that temper again. Hopefully someone is going to block you soon.--Carnesc 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, You keep deleting this discussion page. Afraid of your own words?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Select Portfolio Servicing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060418031208/http://www.credit-suisse.com:80/investors/en/ib_strategy.html to http://www.credit-suisse.com/investors/en/ib_strategy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)