Talk:Jim DeBerry

Biased article

This article is clearly biased in favor of the subject. Not only does it contain factual inaccuracies, but links to articles that are written in favor of Jim Deberry's company and public profile, articles that appear to have been written specifically to praise him (outside the context of a review -- these are promotions, not reviews).

The article is essentially acting as a hype man and a shill for Jim Deberry and should be completely rewritten for neutrality's sake. Wikipedia articles are not advertisements.

Actually, forget about rewriting the article. The whole thing should just be deleted, as the subject is not particularly notable and the page does not link to very many relevant topics. Outside of Definitive Marketing and the other small business ventures Jim Deberry is associated with, he does not seem to be very notable.129.79.70.174 (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

REPLY AND COUNTERPOINT Respectfully, the biased claimant may want to review the definition. which is "unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something" or "cause to feel or show inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something" Based on the IP user findings, I believe the IP user claims are merit-less and biased with unfair prejudice. Upon review of the dispute made, it is my understanding that this disputing party is making invalid claims. First the filing partying comes from an IP who has made zero post other than this claim. It’s possible the IP user is not familiar with the terms of service or inexperienced or just new and didn’t provide due diligence. It’s possible the IP user holds a personal grudge towards the article subject or is acting with malicious intent and in my opinion, without merit. This is the classic of IP address users acting with no previous edits.

Secondly, the disputing non registered user IP address makes claims of “factual inaccuracies” but does not produce a single fact supporting such claim to form a valid dispute. I find the IP user’s claims as a meritless attempt or attack. The IP user attacking the credibility and integrity of the article without merit or facts to support such claim is not valid grounds for dispute. It’s similar to throwing mud on the wall and seeing what sticks. It is not community friendly and unreasonable to make blanket statements regarding NPOV without actual merits of factual claims. The article subject isn’t written favorably any direction and was done over a period of time, considered, reviewed, and vetted, I’m not understanding the intent of opposition. Any user is free to edit and expand upon the article within the Wikipedia terms of service and encouraged to do so as such page is not locked. Upon reviewing the article over, it is written with a neutral point of view, the subject basis is covered impartially and independently. If any individual reads the IP users dispute you will notice the IP user change nonfactual opinion midstream, by all appearances the IP users could potentially be acting on emotion by not liking the article subject, it is also possible sudden conflict of interest by the IP user, but more likely a case of a new user who may never login again or register and we all should consider claims and users like this one with a grain of salt . Lastly, my conclusion to this is the classic case of one time edit IP user attack. PrestonDorey (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Deberry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.poolspanews.com/budgeting/take-your-pick.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140228194538/http://aquamagazine.com/content/post/Pleatco-Announces-2011-Perfect-Pool-Guy-And-Gal.aspx to http://aquamagazine.com/content/post/Pleatco-Announces-2011-Perfect-Pool-Guy-And-Gal.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Deberry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110161555/http://aquamagazine.com/content/post/15-Twitter-Tips-From-Industry-Pros.aspx to http://aquamagazine.com/content/post/15-Twitter-Tips-From-Industry-Pros.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

came across this via blog post - "where a racist comedian draws the line" (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/12/where-racist-comedian-draws-line/355756/) - and it appear to be unnotable and done by the subject. just wanted to flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.244.8 (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)