Talk:Life Alert Emergency Response

message: I felt the article read too much like an advertisement. I cut it down. Feel free to add more, without making it sound like an ad. BrokenSegue 03:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I tried to clean it up a bunch.  Seems a lot less like an advertisement now.  Things like being 'waterproof' really made it sound too ad-like, and I removed or rephrased things like that.  Was pretty much an in-place rewrite.  Kevin_b_er 23:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: Took this from the main article
 \Don't delete this.  It is an objective statement
and allows the reader to have another resource for
info on the company and its service.
  I am a consumer and the controversy over the company
is important to my decision about buying its service.
BUT the controversy is not referred to in the Wikipedia article, so should not irritate the company.
  Sharon Hewitt
Spartaz 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Why should this company (Life Alert) be singled out for complaints? Why are there not complaints links on many other Wiki pages - or, to be fair, for every major company -- hundreds of companies have complaints lodged against them. I thought Wikipedia articles are about the facts about a company, not hearsay and opinions.
Also, I respectfully ask: how do we know that you (or the person who added the complaints link) are really are a consumer and not, hypothetically, someone from Life Alert's competition?  Third, why should there be a complaints link here, yet nothing analogous on the Lifeline wiki page - since Lifeline is a direct competitor of Life Alert's? 
I think either all major companies on Wikipedia should have complaint links on them, or none should.  That would seem to be the two fair scenarios.
Finally, I know of no "controversy" over the Life Alert service; what are your sources?  If one person puts up a website about complaints, who says that person is an authority, and that his/her sources are all valid? 
In short, this all seems very subjective and out of line for what Wikipedia is about.  To the editors who make final decisions, I vote for omitting the Complaints link --- who decides these matters? Please advise. Thank you.
Don Rose (son of a Life Alert user who swears by it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddrose (talk • contribs) 
:The removal of the link has been reverted several times so there appears to be a consensus of some kind that it should be there. To my mind the article is something of an advert and a contrary link is a good way of balancing the article to be NPOV. --Spartaz 09:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is Life Alert being singled out for an industry-wide complaint (in other words, an issue as likely to be present in another provider as this one). It is grossly unfair (biased) to say “Life Alert sucks because (whatever the problem was)” when another service has the same issue (say billing problems, for example). If it’s an issue unique to Life Alert (let’s say the bill you for every single use of the service, when everyone else simply has a monthly bill, no matter how many times you hit the button), that WOULD be appropriate to include on this page, to the exclusion of others. (I did not notice that section, so I can’t really address whether or not it should be there fairly.)97.120.230.36 (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal about the Added Link for Life Alert Complaints 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The article uses some terminology unique (or at least seemingly unique) to Life Alert’s products and services, rather than terminology used throughout the industry. If such terminology exists, it should be used to describe what the system is.97.120.230.36 (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Industry-Wide Terminology

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Life Alert Emergency Response. 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/20110217202456/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/smallscreen/news/article_1619632.php/Liam-Neeson-interview-on-Leno-monologue-Feb-15 to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/smallscreen/news/article_1619632.php/Liam-Neeson-interview-on-Leno-monologue-Feb-15
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) 13:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "I've fallen, and I can't get up!" could be merged into Life Alert Emergency Response. The catchphrase originated in LifeCall and Life Alert commercials. Both articles are short and duplicate some content. --2600:1008:B02F:8483:8000:C922:679A:A270 (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose the catchphrase is from a different unrelated company's advertisement. Life Alert's advertising uses a different phrase. If I was not inclined to AGF I might think this is an attempt to "hijack" a different company's intellectual property. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase was trademarked in 1992 by LifeCall, a distributor of medical alarms, and cancelled in 1999. Life Alert, another distributor of medical alarms, added the word "Help!" with their trademark of the phrase in 2002, and in 2007, Life Alert also obtained trademark on the original version. It's there in the article and verified by the US Patent and Trademark Office database.--2600:1008:B02F:8483:FC1C:424E:87C2:66D4 (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Closing, given the objection and no support, with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The oppose is no longer correct (per article's TRADEMARKS section). Now, 18 months later, it seems right to do the merge. Peek at AARP magazine ads and you may also think so. Nuts240 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal