Talk:Stream Energy/Archives/2012

Legitimacy

I got am email from them, but live in Australia. This could be a mistake, sent to the wrong address, but it looks like a phishing/scam email. I've wrote about it here: http://aronzak.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/stream-energy-scam/ You can read about the pyramid scheme here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/265/RipOff0265478.htm. If my edits get reverted without good reason, there is reason to believe that this is a fake group that is using hostile editing to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool to get legitimacy. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Will put on AFD if this is not resolved. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, The legitamacy section of this article was a gross over statement of true fact's and clearly needed editing to resolve such false statements or terms such as "Legal Pryamid Scheme" with an open link to a forum that makes false statements and accusations and does not even allow a discussion opportunity to questioning such bias statements. The term "Legal Pryamid Scheme" is an oxymoron. How can something be Legal and a Scheme at the same time. Also the legitamicy section used phrasing such as "The company responds to question in a bias manner" as if any company can answer any questions in any other way? Yet at the same time does not give any example or reference of any questions or answers offered or given in any bias way. I have been viewing many company profiles on wikipedia and have found most statements in the profile to be factual and/or the truth can be found via simple research. Streams fact's have been researched and show to be factual. However the Legitamacy section was in fact bias and unfactual and a clear attack on the Stream Company article.Trueresearch (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)--Trueresearch (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)