User talk:Jaykeith29

VistaPrint[edit]

Thanks for your reply. Independence of people and publications editing the article and quoted as sources does not in itself imply NPOV. I still contend that the article is bursting with superlatives, big-numberism and boasts over its business rivals that would be more suitable in a VistaPrint corporate publication. It is not considered an advantage in a WKP article for a corporate PR team to 'work with ' editors, as the objectives of editors and PR people do not often overlap.

I'm also quite aware that there is often a circular process going on when newspaper reports are used as references. The PR team assert a fact because it was reported by newspapers, whereas the first newspaper obtained the 'fact' from the active PR team, and the others copied it from the first. There is a problem with the tone, the lack of information on the customer experience e.g. customer complaints, and the ridiculous awards list. It is extraneous information that VistaPrint was in the Deloitte Technology Fast 50, New England in 2006. Centrepull (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at VistaPrint, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]