Talk:TransUnion/Archives/2012

Comment

This page appears to have been copied from another source. Additionally it needs wikified and perhaps cleaned up.. Cliffb 05:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This material was posted by the copyright holder; he has written to Wikipedia confirming this. I have done some minimal cleanup on the article and may return for another pass. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed corporate PR and hagiographic history

Unfortunately, little remains. For anyone who would like to add material, including the PR department of TransUnion, please keep your material factual, balanced, encyclopedic in tone, and neutral in point of view. Otherwise, it will be edited out. NuclearWinner 23:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this edit was WAY over done. It removed 90% of the article when it should have been NPOV edited instead. Alexkraegen (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. These matters are often a difficult call. I judged the material to be not only POV, but also so vastly excessive as to be POV just in its sheer mass. Having such a massive amount of trivial detail about corporate history is POV as it makes the biased assumption that an encyclopedia reader has at least a slight chance of caring about that material. It appeared to be so much detail in such an adulatory tone as to constitute a vanity page. I had the choice of editing it intensely to find the 2-3% that might possibly be encyclopedic, or deleting to make space for actual encyclopedic information without the overwhelming slant. If you can find encyclopedic content in that mass, I urge you to make selective edits to restore it and craft it into something that meets Wikipedia guidelines. NuclearWinner (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Restored warning about manipulation

OK, Pfleischman added a warning about manipulation....and then user 140.192.227.2 removed it without discussion. Kindly don't do that again. Always discuss such a change. Thanks! NuclearWinner 00:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The warning was removed twice again by anonymous IP address users with no other contributions. Kindly cut that out. You do realize that you make TransUnion appear to be creepy and sleazy when you manipulate the entry like this....right? 20:04, NuclearWinner 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal experience material appears to be original research

Thanks, 65.189.219.182, for contributing to Wikipedia. It looks like you are a new editor and you are very welcome to one of the most dynamic sites on the World Wide Waste of time! Wikipedia has a policy [1]. Basically, we only include material that has been published by verifiable third party sources. An account of someone's personal experiences don't usually qualify, unless they have been published or otherwise turned into something other than an assertion. Therefore, I have removed the material you added. I hope you will take the opportunity to search for third party sources that describe TransUnion's behavior with respect to customers, because it is a topic of great interest. Thanks for understanding, and I hope you don't feel discouraged. NuclearWinner 19:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Restored "dispute process" material that was deleted summarily

Deleting an entire topic calls for discussion on the talk page. Although I certainly see reason to question or revise this material, particularly in that it requires citations, the appropriate action is to add citation or tag it as needing citations, not simply to delete it. NuclearWinner 20:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A different kind of fraud using TransUnion

I'm not listing this because it's both my company and a blog of a non-notable company, but I would like to see if there is an actually notable report on this most recent fraud that could be listed here.

http://www.telegenisys.com/blog/2010/08/beware-of-telegenisys-jobscom/

Hcobb (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)