Talk:Scottevest

Refspam

Too many refs repeating the same thing and not backing the statement they are supposed to source. Racconish ^Tk 14:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Negative editing in Summer 2015

I am aware that this page has been targeted over the years by people who have grudges or apparent interest in attacking Scottevest or running it down. It has been taken twice to AFD (the second nomination is what drew my attention to the article and to the editing issues around it.) It is obvious from a look at the edit history and at Scott Jordan and the company in general that he rubs up people the wrong way and has made a number of enemies and people who appear to have a vested interest in making this page as negative as possible in order to reflect badly on him, rather than neutral, which I am trying to maintain. I have zero connection to Scottevest - I am just a completely unassociated editor who has picked up on these issues. Regardless of whether or not the company sucks, it easily passes notability and has every right to be on Wikipedia.

While the page was probably originally created by biased representatives, it has since been rewritten and revised to make it more neutral and reflect what is published in reputable sources.

The edits made by anonymous ISPs on June 2015, and recently re-added by reversion by User:Crashingbiscuit were all, without exception, negative (despite Crashingbiscuit's assertion in this summary that a "more balanced" view had been given. Here is a breakdown of the editing:

• An unsupported-by-cite assertion was made that the company had "violated" an agreement, disingenuously inserted before an existing citation to make it appear that this was referenced.
• Another negative statement about Jordan, apparently from "Sources close to Jordan" (Original research) was also fallaciously inserted before an existing citation to make it appear referenced.
• The external links section was bombed with six links to 100% negative reviews. WP:ELPOV advises against this. Many of then violate the policy on external links too - the three links [1], [2], and [3] are all forums/user contributed sites, which are listed under 10 and 11 of links to be avoided. The other three links are also essentially personal blogs, despite their slick and professional appearance, with no evidence that they are produced under third-party editorial control. While Dave and Deb, Dr. Schertzer, and Ian Fenn, do write well and have very slick-looking websites, I am not convinced that they are in positions to be considered reputable sources on this topic. Anyone can be a disgruntled customer and whinge on their blog, but these viewpoints need to be published under editorial control in order to be accepted as sources, and are not appropriate as external links.

For these reasons I have reverted the reversion made by CrashingBiscuit. If the two statements in the text are to be re-added, then they should be supported by new citations and not piggybacked onto existing cites. None of the external links appear to be appropriate. Mabalu (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Summer 2016: Along these lines, a recent edit was made linking to Scottevest's YouTube video (not a reliable/appropriate source, even if it is in his own words) and details were added about how he'd made himself look bad on Shark Tank. Given this page's history of negative edits/superficially "okay" edits which boil down to smearing the subject/casting a negative light on him, particularly from anonymous editors, the edit has been removed. Even if it is his own words, let the man damage himself - we don't need to have "helpful" anonymous editors pointing out every bacon sandwich moment. Mabalu (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)