User talk:Bloombergy

People to People

Sorry dear but you are mistaken and feel free to do any research necessary. The funny part is you kept putting the non proft thing when down in the program management part it was made clear that it isnt non profit.

How it stands is People to People Student programs is run by Ambassadors International FOR profit. It however was started by the non profit People to People international; who contracted it out to Ambassadors international. It is for profit as it stands (otherwise those kids would be flying free to Australia; they profit off of their programs.) You cant just take a website for its word. I can make a company and write whatever I want on my site about it; doesnt mean thats a subjective source. Several other sources show it IS for profit and any simple research will show this.

As for 2) So your telling me an article like ponzi scheme couldnt use the word scam? Obviously with this company whatever the truth of it may be (I've never used it personally) there is a huge number of complaints from legit sites and sources. On more then one occasion it has been called a 'scam' and I dont find that non neutral. I cant declare it A scam but it is part of the company's history and it is encyclopediac in that sense.

3) Yes you did remove a reference at the top. And then you put your non profit one with a very biased reference. I can go find about 6 sites to cite that is for profit; if you can find a source other then the official site go for it. I think full out pricing info is not relevant to the article; we're not selling trips we're telling what it is and what it does.

And as for the 'complaints' removal section refer to #2. Its a big part of the company's history and it deserves a mention in the top. Britney Spears has gone crazy; and its become a big part of her career and life. A small mention is made in the top of her article about this. Just because its negative doesnt mean it shouldnt be mentioned. I've been usuing wikipedia for years and it seems your new; please dont be so brazen as to accuse me of being biased just because I dont put references from the official site in the top paragraph.

--Thegingerone (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I do not have a history of edit wars. Usually Im fighting some vandal and win (as in this case, the Zachary Jaydon case, the Lou Pearlman case, etc). There is no 'confusion'. It is clearly stated in the article that People to People International is non profit, but People to People Ambassador programs are NOT non profit. That is the fact of the matter. You cant cite marketing texts as 'fact'. Thats like saying McDonald's is good for you because they say so. It could be worded as, "The company represents the program selection process as....*your statements* but in reality *truth of statements*'. Feel free to put a third party editor on it; Im sure they would be in agreement. --Thegingerone (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People to People International is indeed a 501(c)3 non-profit, not a for-profit entity as you have repeatedly stated. You can look this up on www.guidestar.org. I think your confusion comes from the relationship between the non-profit People to People entity and the for-profit coordinator of the programs. Incidentally, even non-profit institutions like Harvard operate student travel-abroad programs which require a tuition, so your argument that students would fly for free if it were a non-profit is not valid.

I have read the articles and anonymous posts that call the program a scam. I have also read numerous posts from students who have apparently traveled with the program and they say it is not a scam. The company also obviously says they are not a scam. Whether it is a scam or not is not for me to determine. I was merely pointing out that labeling it a scam based on a subset of the opinions is POV and does not belong in Wiki.

You have indeed been using Wikipedia for years but I was not being brazen by noting your biased tone in the edits. You have a history of engaging in edit wars and vandalism, as noted on your history page. I have also noticed that you have methodically undone or eviscerated the contributions of all of the other editors, including mine, in the People to People entry. Please stop engaging in this territorial practice and combative editing Bloombergy (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:72-3589-4.jpg

File:72-3589-4.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Eisenhower with People to People committee.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Eisenhower with People to People committee.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:P2Pcharter Page 1.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:P2Pcharter Page 1.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:P2Pcharter Page 1.jpg

The file File:P2Pcharter Page 1.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused document, no foreseeable use, and not US federal government as claimed

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wikiacc (¶) 23:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]