Talk:Evite

message: :Add any additional comments
The name EVite was an error by an anonymous editor at 24.9.113.28 on August 4. That same user then started editing Evite on August 31 and left a comment asking for the article to be moved from EVite to Evite. Later on August 31, User:Aaron Brenneman merged the contents into EVite when they should have been merged into Evite. Mike Dillon 02:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: External links to pages can be of competitors, provided they to have similar services.
eBulawa.com definitely fits into External Links category. On top of that eBulawa is for Indians in particular and asians at large.
Regarding these three changes:
* Evite is comparable specifically to Yahoo!’s upcoming.org (which Yahoo! recently acquired).  Evite is not really comparable to Yahoo! more broadly.
* Since Wikipedia has articles for Yahoo!, upcoming.org, and Meetup.com, it seems to me to make sense to link to them rather than directly to the external site; while the eventful.com and SureToMeet.com articles don't yet exist, creating the wikilinks to them may spur those articles' creation (see Special:Wantedpages).
—Fleminra 01:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The "External links" section should only be for external links to pages about the subject of the article, not competitors. None of the removed links have information about Evite, so they don't belong in Evite's article. Mike Dillon 16:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Externalization of links

message: This section is way too long and biased. I am going to gut it to only things that are seemingly obvious or have citations, and are from notable sources. If you want to add them back, please add a citation, and make sure to avoid general statements that use weasel words. Rm999 (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Over a year later, and it's just as bad - I've just added the 'POV' template to the article. At least all the criticism is sourced now (I removed the unsourced comments), but I still think there's too much of it - criticism from blogs shouldn't be included unless they're particularly notable. I know nothing about Evite myself, so I don't know how fair all the criticism is, but I know the article doesn't look very neutral as a result. Robofish (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read it like a commercial for Socializr!  There are so many other party planner out there now that to only mention why Socializr is better is really biased.  192.75.101.57 (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Evite. 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/20070519135843/http://summation.typepad.com/summation/2006/01/evite_is_incred.html to http://summation.typepad.com/summation/2006/01/evite_is_incred.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011023723/http://valleywag.com/tech/modern-and-awkward/8-companies-we-all-hate-and-why-we-use-them-anyway-260371.php to http://valleywag.com/tech/modern-and-awkward/8-companies-we-all-hate-and-why-we-use-them-anyway-260371.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Article reads much like an about page on the company's website. In fact, the first sentence appears to be taken directly from the company's website circa 2017. This seems to have originated from this revision, so I've reverted the first sentence to the revision before that. The user associated with the edit has only edited this page. There also seems to be some information lost, namely,
The first sentence was all that I touched since I'm not confident in my editing abilities nor do I have much experience with this company.
Schobbish (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: (self reply) It does seem like there is some conflict-of-interest editing going on. The first sentence in the revision I linked above was reverted by another user, but that was reverted back by a third user who has also only ever edited this article. Furthermore, that user uses the pronoun "we" to refer to the company in edit summaries. Not sure if it is appropriate to add  here, but a COI warning has already been added to both users' talk pages. Schobbish (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added avert tag 

message: no sources in this section.  Gertruda Low (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  usage