Talk:Masterpapers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Request Speedy delete - This is an ad posted by the owner that is meant to generate traffic from Wikipedia's good name; the owner of MasterPapers.com continuously SPAMs links to his site in other people's blogs and posts this type of ad-for-profit all over the Internet, not just on Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not a place for ads and self-promotion; the article serves absolutely no use for the public good) 69.181.100.254 05:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place in order to advertise companies or groups. In order for your company to be included on wikipedia, it must be notable. M.(er) 05:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
quite possible, but it seems from the references that it is also quite possible that the operation is notable. If it is desired to delete this, it would require a discussion at AfD. I have in the meantime marked the article with tags for NPOV and notability. DGG (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
If masterpapers.com is "notable," it's due to the site's terrible reputaion for fraud and misrepresentation. See the external links to third party sources at the end of the article. 69.181.100.254 01:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's notable too. It could even be said that Wikipedia has a important role in covering this material, for the purpose of giving a NPOV presentation, which can serve as a fair warning. We similarly cover all significant non-accredited educational institutions, and so on. If the information is presented according to WP:V and NPOV, then the reader will understand. for example, I had not known about the google decision before reading this article, and I am very glad they did it. At this point it is by no means an advertisement, and in my view as an admin, speedy would be totally inappropraate. DGG (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that the more fraudulent, the more "notable"? Should Wikipedia not send out an open invitation to all fraudulent sites to create their very own Wikipedia page to help generate more traffic? 69.181.100.254 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
they can create them if they wish, but per [[:WP:COI[]] and WP:BFAQ, we will look at them very carefully indeed. Objective articles will do them good--whether they like it or not-- and do the public good as well. And that is what they are going to have here, if responsible critics like you add well sourced critical material, and people with a NPOV evaluate it. If you'll look at what I've edited in general, I am rather impatient about spam and corporate puffery, & have warned and then blocked people who try to push the limits, and protected articles that need it. I only wish i could find time to get rid of more of it. As long as we make sure they don't OWN articles, the readers will be well served.
But in terms of negative material, complaints on most blogs just dont make it. They have to be from sources with editorial responsibility, per WP:RS, just as positive claims must be. DGG (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You can't discount a blog just because it's a blog. The facts that the blogger posted speak for themselves. It's not like the blogger fabricated any information. You can verify his statements by using archive.org. I verified that the terrible Web copy on masterpapers.com actually existed at some point (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.masterpapers.com) before I posted the link in this Wikipedia article. The blogger's information is valid and extremely useful for anyone who may be contemplating hiring masterpapers.com. 69.181.100.254 07:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, sorry, but yes we can and so we do--in almost all cases, see WP:V and WP:RS. There are some exceptions: Some few blogs are recognized authorities in their field, but this has to be proven by independent sources. A blog can be used for information about the blog itself, or for the personal views of whoever is running the blog or signs the post, but only if that person is an authority, or notable, or the subject of an article, or discussed in an article--and therefore his r its personal views are elevant. It absolutely can not be used for the general praise or criticism of any product or person. Or if the blog should cite reliable sources, then you can find the reliable source and cite that. A publication used as a source must be under editorial control- -not just posting whatever anyone sends. And it must except for the sort of thing mentioned be independent of the subject.

I will look again at the material you have posted. there is, by the way, a good deal of discussion of companies with this sort of product in various reliable journals and newspapers--ask any librarian for help in finding it.--some of it may be about this particular company. DGG (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As for http://masterpapers.blog.com/ I do not know who runs it-- it is not necessarily the company. it has a variety of information--and that information may be possibly usable depending on the source. Its not the blog which is necessarily the factor, but the source.

First the references:

  • References one through five are public relations releases, not news stories. The material is material obtained from companies, prepared by their own public relations staff. It can be a reliable source of information for uncontroversial details about the company. It cannot be used to support statements about the quality of its products--it is basically advertising. If it says they hired 87 writers, It might be reasonable to believe them. But it goes on to say they passed some kind of a test for quality, I have worded it so it shows it is merely what the company claims. Its no more reliable than their own web site.
  • the others are from important newspapers, and might be fine. That is, if the articles are about the company, not the general subject of such services. But the only one that seems to be is [1]. Perhaps the one on Google is appropriate as background. But the others discuss the general subject,and you cannot turn a discussion on the company into a discussion of why its wrong to use such services in general.

Now the external links. The policy here is WP:EL. The companies own web site is a suitable link. BBB is consider a usable link, for it screens its material. The question now is http://www.essayfraud.org/forum/MasterPapers-f4.html Nobody can know who wrote this. Using it as a link is in my opinion not really acceptable for this article. DGG (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] reference list

I've already opened the discussion about external links at My Talk page and I'm really worried why the user who added this link (Essayfraud.org forum) cannot explain why it's notable: I have read the post linked to my article and found out some student claims Masterpapers provides poor quality: it's a personal discussion which does not give a notable info about the company. Moreover, I've made some investigations throughout the Internet and WP and found out that article about Essayfraud.org was refused in publication at WP due to several reasons: the info is not notable; Essayfraud.org forum might have been run by Essaytown.com - the company which seems Masterpapers.com competition (I viewed Essaytown.com website and noticed they are quite blutant regarding masterpapers). I'm not interested in being evolved in companies' competition fight as it would seem breaking WP rules and showing disgrace to online encyclopedia which I believe the most useful and reliable source. As for masterpapers.com blog, I haven't known about it till saw its discussion at my page. Anyway, I dont'd think their blog should be used as an external source.

Please follow basic Wikipedia etiquette and sign your posts. Please do not post accusations about your competitors that you cannot prove.
The Masterpapers.com forum at EssayFraud.org not only communicates dozens of customers' overall dissatisfaction with Masterpapers, but also provides evidence that proves Masterpapers used an unauthorized, personal address as their fake address in the state of Maine. Potential customers should be made aware of any company's deceptive past. The EssayFraud.org forum also provides substantial evidence suggesting that MasterPapers.com is based in Ukraine, not the US, as they post on their Web site. There is even a conversation between the Ukrainian owners of MasterPapers.com and BestEssays.com, the original source of which is still online for public verification. 69.181.100.254 01:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Please provide the responsible source from the third party to add to external links: it does not matter whether it is negative or positive. The most important thing, it must be neutral to be notable according to WP policy.By the way, I used 3 notable resources: The Age, Times and BBC which do show negative point of view, but they are really reliable and I would not delete them, no way! I do want to solve NPOV discussion positively therefore I try to prove all references and resources are notable, reliable and neutral. what reputable third organization would prove Essayfraud.org as a neutral and reliable source? Please give reference: I'd be really appreciated you.Masterpapers
Please read my comment carefully: I have said nothing accusive about Essaytown. Is Essayfraud a competitor? Please give me a light about this forum. Masterpapers
Hi anonymous,please do not ignore my requests: I did not understand your comment regarding Essayfraud competitor and absense of its staff contacts (.ny) is not the proof of the company's responsibilities for anything:here's its disclaimer policy: 'Essayfraud.org does not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message or complaint. Essayfraud.org is not responsible for any message or complaint.' (see their home page). have you ever read this policy? You said about the forum 'The Masterpapers.com forum at EssayFraud.org not only communicates dozens of customers' overall dissatisfaction with Masterpapers, but also provides evidence that proves Masterpapers used an unauthorized, personal address...' How can you ensure you words if Essayfraud.org itself 'is not responsible'? If you dislike the company so much, please supply your personalviewpoint with neutral, reputable source - the more notable sources will be the more value will be given to my article. Thanks Masterpapers

[edit] neutral discussion

I would ask the anonymous user discussing my article's neutrality be neutral himself and do not use 'terrible' 'fraudulent' and other abusive language: just give a proof for your arguments - this will serve better to achieve your goals.

[edit] essayfraud.com

So, anon, who does operate this blog? I couldnt find any information on their site. It is just possible that they are a neutral and responsible organization, in which case it can be used, but if we do not know who is running it,then it really does have to be removed, and as a neutral party I will do so unless you can direct me to some information. I also intend to remove all material that makes any positive claims for the service not sourced in third party sources. Any actual newspaper or magazine articles that mention it substantially, p in either direction, can still be used, of course. DGG (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a blog. It's a user-driven forum. Big difference. The overall message is not a single person's opinion.
My IP address is not anonymous. It's less anonymous than "DGG" or any other username.
Read http://www.essayfraud.org/address.html to find out why they only use a contact form. 69.181.100.254 20:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not anonymous, btw. My user page says who I am, and I can verify by email. DGG (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Please show me where Wikipedia requires a "username" in order to contribute. 69.181.100.254 04:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
To be sure it doesn't. anyone may contribute, and I have never said otherwise. If you dislike anon., I can call you by your ip address.

But surely you see that despite the understandable reasons for being anonymous we can not use it as a source. Anyone can post anything there, subject to the possible removal by some unknown party, and the conclusions similarly are written by someone who does not take public responsibility for them. But possibly some reliable known party has published something that says the forum is responsible and reliable. If so, we can probably find a way to use the material in some manner. Otherwise, the material sourced there will be deleted. Feel free to ask about it first at the WP:RSN --the reliable sources Noticeboard. If you want the criticism in, find places where such criticisms have been published or authenticated. This has nothing to do with my personal views on the subject.DGG (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question

It was mentioned above that the articles on essayfraud.org was 'refused publication in wikipedia". As an administrator, I have access to the text of deleted pages, and I cannot find such a deleted article. The list of deleted pages is available to all using the deletion log,available through the Log entry at specialpages (listed at the left of the screen), and I do not see it there either. Do any of you have any information on this? There are various possible explanations, but I need to see a copy of the information that you have. DGG (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi David. Here's the link where this info was available: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarahTeach&oldid=41165407 Masterpapers (talk)22 October

Ah, I think you are referring to [2]. That does seem to demonstrate why the site cannot be used as objective. if I may give my personal opinion,a statement that "we will show you exactly why you MUST AVOID all foreign sites, subscription sites, membership sites, free sites, and database sites." can indeed be seen as promotion for one or more expensive US sites. The two sites are identical, and the links on the essayfraud portion of essaytown resolve to essaytown, while the links on essayfraud itself resolve to the identical pages on essayfraud.
I notice that essayfraud does not include complaints about essaytown; I have yet to imagine a service of this sort that does not engender complaints, if only from disappointed students not getting the grade they think they paid for.
We have a phrase for this, POT, SEE KETTLE. DGG (talk) (signed belatedly)
DGG, unless there is direct promotion, you cannot refer to it as "promotion." That is very irresponsible on your part. If I were to tell you that I hate hamburgers, would you assume that I love hot dogs and post it all over your Web site? What happened to the need for "reputable" and "dependable" sources of information? POT, SEE KETTLE.
The sites are not at all "identical." Essaytown displays an on-page iFrame of the EssayFraud.org site. Do you know what that is? An iFrame allows a separate Web site to be viewed within another Web site's page. Webmasters use iFrames when they want to show visitors information on another site, but do not want the visitors to leave their own site. No matter what Essayfraud.org links you click within the iFrame, you will not leave that Essaytown page. What happens is that the iFrame refreshes and displays whatever Essayfraud.org page that was attached to the link that you clicked inside the iFrame.
The links on the essayfraud portion of essaytown do NOT resolve to essaytown. You came to that incorrect conclusion because you did not understand the iFrame.
Do you know that hundreds of other writing sites have similar links and logos for EssayFraud.org? I think masterpapers' people pick on Essaytown simply because it is a competitor and the most prominent supporter of Essayfraud.org. They are trying to kill two birds with one stone. Look: http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkyUveStHng4Bmtal87UF?p=linkdomain%3Aessayfraud.org+-site%3Aessayfraud.org&ei=utf-8&iscqry=&fr=sfp 69.181.100.254 19:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand about frames, and am not quite convinced in this particular case. In any event,the link is unusable because of being unreliably sourced negative information from a web site without any definable editorial control. Your comment makes it clear to me that this is indeed a competitive situation between masterpapers and other companies. DGG (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Not convinced about what, exactly? If you are going to make an accusation, please be direct about it so that I can properly defend against your false accusations. You are clearly biased in favor of the term paper mill. I expect you to show me evidence of the "defamation" of which you accuse me on my talk page. 69.181.100.254 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

DGG (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi David, please give me a note how this NPOV can be resolved: whether other references should be disputed/edited as well.Masterpapers (talk) 23 October

I am not likely to forget about this article. --just provide on the talk page here whatever good information or references you have. As for actually editing the article, I think that at this point both you and 69.181.100.254 would do well not to do so. DGG (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean additional sources toher than already given in the article? Thanks Masterpapers (talk) 24 October
Dear David, what references should I add/delete to resolve NPOV dispute? Masterpapers (talk) 24 October


I'd like to to delete some in-text citations and external links, excep these ones: in-text citations: [1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

external links: Masterpapers.com company web site Please give your ideas (everybody) asap. Thanks! Masterpapers (talk) 30 October
Sorry, they are not so viewable as I thought... I mean two The Age publications, one The Times publication, one BBC article and 3 press releases which drop a light to Masterpapers activity. as for external links I want to delet all except masterpapers home page, is that OK? Masterpapers (talk) 30 October

DGG, now he wants to delete all of the links that HE posted just to be able to get rid of the valid BBB link that shows Masterpapers.com's "unsatisfactory" business record. (The BBB page uses the word "unsatisfactory," not me.) Why do you not call him on this? Do you not find it suspicious that he now wants all links removed, except, of course, the one to his home page? 69.181.100.254 20:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
as I have said, the BBB link will remain. There is ample precedent for it. Of course, it too can be challenged at the RS noticeboard. DGG (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] qy

1."Assure monitoring of its products end-use (students had to disclaim non-use of company's papers as their own)" can you explain this please, and give a reference--it seems contradictory? disclaim non-use? 2. The BBB link will certainly stay. They are a responsible organization. 3. it has been asserted that the claim to employ primarily native english speakers is a/negative advertising implying but not proving that the other services do not do it, and b/ is false. How should that sentence be reworded. 4.diversification: the section and following sentences on that seem to say the same thing twice. In any case, how important is it actually in the business? 5. "validated its papers by COMODO in order to assure they did not violate copyright laws, and guarantee that they were original, and of satisfactory quality." This is documented only by an internal press release. It can furthermore be seen as evading the main question, of their deliberately being rewritten for improper use. DGG (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi Dave, thanks for quick reply. I've made some changes according to your recommendations: I do not want to add some more info about company's services as they would seem some kind of advertisement. The most important thing is to tell the history of the company which faces one of the most difficult and disputive quesitons in the writing world: plagiarism and copyright laws; and what solutions can be made by the companies providing writing and research services. I'd be really appreciated for your urther guidance :)Masterpapers (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The general issue would better be discussed in a separate article, where all companies involved could be treated. Not here. DGG (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The essayfraud link

This link can not be used in this article unless the objections raised by me above have been answered. I will treat any attempt to reinsert it as disrupting the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewritten

I have removed all controversial or ambguous material not supported by reliable 3rd party sources.I suspect from some of the above discussion that none of the contending parties will be satisfied, which probably shows that i have the right balance. DGG (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dave, I'm totally satisfied. Thanks for your help a lot!!! Masterpapers (talk) 3 November 2007

[edit] last edition

Hi Dave, the last edition which was made by either you or anonymous cut off my article so that a reader could hardly understand anything about the company. Moreover, 'Response for Criticism' part does not have any company's 'response': just media critics. This part contained some info about Masterpapers' new strategies which cannot be disputed as an advertisement, right? (by Masterpapers)

The material omitted was an attempt to make the company look good by implied unsupported comparisons based on its own public relations handouts.. As for defense of the company, we'll be glad to include anything that can be found published in reliable third party sources--as always, for any article. DGG (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll add if I've found any :)Masterpapers (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] personal experiences

There are suitable places to express one good or bad experiences with this and other companies, but this is not one of them.DGG (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)