Talk:Consumer Action Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] This is clearly an advert for a website....

why is this worthy of a page?? It is blatently advertising a website...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legalbeagles (talk • contribs) 15 July 2007.

The consumer action group is a noteable website. I've not visited it many times myself, and don't know about how it's organised and funded, but it's been mentioned several times on TV and in the press. The current article just doesn't do it justice Identz 15:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Large membership but very low visitors of late. The forum has a poor repuation on the net and many members have now left CAG to join other forums. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.38.64.6 (talk • contribs) 19 July 2007.
May be true, may not. Like I say, haven't been there in a while - but I've undid your edit to the article as it wasn't encyclopaedic. See WP:ENC Aldaden 00:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clearly an attack from a rival consumer site

...and should be treated with the contempt that it deserves.

This article (for the most part) complies with the wiki standard, and is clearly notable - there have been numerous press articles regarding the CAG and many national TV appearances. They have been on TV in Australia and in Hong Kong - I think the question of Notability has been answered.

There is no link to the site from here, which makes it unclear how this is an advertisement. This article was NOT written by any of the 'staff' of CAG (although it has been edited by such). I think the fact that your username is 'legalbeagles' which as you must know is a site that was set up by a discredited CAG staff member speaks volumes. For the most part, it seems that the LB site's main objective is to discredit CAG.

Indeed, legal moves are afoot regarding LB's last attack.

Attempting to use Wikipedia to do that, is, in my opinion very disrespectful.

Members to CAG typically grow at around 100 (weekend) to 400 (weekdays) per day and continue to do so - on average days the main page recieves over one million hits. Where the 'sadly a dying forum' and 'poor reputation' comes from is anybody's guess ;-) Sour grapes perhaps?

Despite the claim in an older post and that there are 'very low visitors' and that the site recieves less than 250 visits per day, at the time of writing there are currently over 1000 people viewing it's forum.

It smells of desperations to be honest, you shouldn't be using Wikipedia in an attempt to continue your smear campaign, indeed, your posts will not be helpful to the LB site with regards to the impending legal action against them. I suggest you refrain from this point on. Perhaps grow up a little too.

Copies of your user text have been submitted to CAG's solicitors.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.202.26.135 (talk • contribs) 7 August 2007.Dchurch24 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'm really glad you've expanded the Consumer Action Group's article, but your style was more bullet-points than article. I've made a few slight changes to try to make it more in keeping with other articles in Wikipedia. Also, if you sign your comment just by adding four tildes (~~~~) it will make following conversations on these talk pages easier to follow (registering for a username makes it even easier) Identz 15:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for telling me how to sign ;-) I did it in that style as I didn't want it to look like an advertisement - which is what it started to look like (which it isn't). I am the admin of the CAG, but I didn't start the article - in fact, I have no idea who did, but have added updates to it as and when. Dchurch24 15:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, thanks for tidying it up a bit for me ;-) Dchurch24 15:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It was I that started the article, I'm now just a mere user (former mod) of CAG, I think my name should ring a bell with you, DChurch. Thanks to both you and to Identz for tidying it up. Ukmonkey 21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits made to this article

Is there a way to request that an article be locked? I'm fed up with having to undo rival site member's irrelevant graffiti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.26.135 (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have the article in my watchlist, and keep an eye on changes regularly, and amend if I deem necessary. Hopefully the discredited ex-staff member and her netfriends will soon become bored, as will CAG's currently member(s) who keeps trying to turn the article into a self-promotional page. Ukmonkey (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The removal of usernames was quite right. The bit about the newsletter was quite right too - although there this will be resurrected in Jan 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.218.216 (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to heard about the newsletter. It's a real shame that this powerful medium was never utilised. I'll amend the article accordingly if this situ changes in the future. Ukmonkey (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, please sign your name with four tildas, without a space. Ukmonkey (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this article is an advertisement

This article is an advertisement for a commercial website. It's not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.122.131 (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no link to the sites address, making it unclear how it is an advertisement. It does read somewhat like an advertisement I agree, however, it is not a profit-making, commercial site. It also abides by the wikipedia standards - i.e. notable (has appeared in the national media more than twice).
The Consumer Action Group is also 'third party verifiable' as can be seen from the links at the bottom of the article. Even if it were a commercial site, the page would still be valid.

Some of the citation neededs are a bit odd too - I'm not sure how to cite the popularity of the site without linking to either the site (where members who are visiting are visible) or by linking to the site stats that are private (google analytics). 194.202.26.135 (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article is not conducive to general knowledge

The article is about an organisation whose sole entity is a website

It’s a personal opinion of the author presented as fact

The author indicates they are involved with the subject organisation and the article not neutral

The article uses grammar and language consistent marketing initiatives

The article promotes the credence of a website using the credence of Wikipedia

The same person is repeatedly editing the article in the subject website’s favour with further edits hiding behind an AOL IP number

The author appears to be involved in a squabble with the subject website’s moderators and using wikipedia as a platform to settle their differences

The information contained in this article is better placed on the subject website own homepage

It contradicts several policies and guidelines on writing Wikipedia articles

The article only benefits the subject organisation website by its inclusion in Wikipedia

Deletion of this article is suggested —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.178.94 (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Why is it that these type of comments are unsigned? (Apart from Legalbeagles at the top). If you are going to attack what is a factual entry for a notable organisation (who are a lot more than "just a website") then at least have the decency and manners to sign the comment. Gertie100 (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are things wrong with the article then please fix them rather than attack. I don't use the Consumer Action Group. I think I visited twice but I didn't find it an easy site to navigate round and I don't really remember why I'm even signed up to watch this article. As a neutral observer it seems very clear to me that some people who have problems over on their site come here and try to vent and manipulate this article - I can't think of any other reason for the comments and edits I have seen. That's not what this place is for. From where I stand The Consumer Action Group is relevant enough to have an article - If it doesn't then I can think of a few hundred less popular sites that have Wikipedia articles that need deleted. Please improve the article rather than complain. If I knew anything about the site I would do it myself Aldaden (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the consensus that the NPOV be removed now? Dchurch24 (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)