Talk:USAA/Archive10

message: USAA is a three-letter acronym that can stand for a wide variety of terms.
* USAA (a sail boat association), US Albacore Association headquartered in San Antonio, TX.
* USAA (an reciprocal inter-insurance exchange), United Services Automobile Exchange headquartered in San Antonio, TX.
etc. etc.
:I think \a see also at the top is more appropriate--Looper5920 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Looper since this USAA is a more well-known company.  My only question is, do we add a "See Also" at the top for companies that don't even have Wiki articles?  --Brownings 20:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, while USAA is used as a trademark, the official business name (part of which is required by Texas law) is United Services Automobile Association (A Reciprocal Interinsurance Exchange).  If you are a member, you can see this on the top of the declarations page of any policy.  Also, isn't USAA a four letter acronym?  Grin.  Swizzlez 20:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A 'vandal' is trying to make a disambiguation page. I propose redirecting this page to the company's current full name, and add a disambiguation link to it. What do you think? (I don't want to do it directly since it seems to be controversial) -- lucasbfr talk 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Wiki has articles for another or all the other uses of USAA, then I say create the disbiguation page.  Until then leave this USAA as the USAA.  --Brownings 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Brownings and Looper5920.  I'd prefer a disambig line at the top; a disambig page would be okay too; but neither is needed until we have information on any of the other organizations.  --Allen 15:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This proposes an acronym page for USAA 

message: From the article:
:anyone can become a member by opening a bank account, an investment account, or by seeking life insurance from USAA
From USAA.com:
:Who can apply?
:    * Active duty officer and enlisted personnel
:    * National Guard and Reserve officer and enlisted personnel
:    * Officer candidates in commissioning programs
:    * Former spouses and adult children of USAA members
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.238.180 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 20 May 2006.
:(former employee here)
:Distinction is what's legally allowed vs. what USAA markets to.  The article is correct; there are specific eligibility rules for property insurance, but not most other products.  In line with their mission statement ('provider of choice for the military community'), USAA primarily markets to military and dependants on usaa.com.
: - 68.92.156.81 06:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anyone"? 

message: Hillcountrygrump 13:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: section removal

message: Every US insurance company constantly adjusts prices up and down.  Likewise they constantly adjust the geographic areas where they sell insurance driven by factors like risk, building codes, rates allowed by the state, etc.
If you are going to post rate changes post all of them, and do it for all of the insurance companies.  This smacks of competition...
--Hillcountrygrump 01:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price increase - bias view 

message: It is subtle, but the reason people in the military couldn't get insurance wasn't because they took their vehicles into combat zones.  It was because they were considered cavalier about life and therefore risky drivers; therefore, high risk drivers. Turns out to be the exact opposite.  They were disciplined, educated, and had a dependable source of income--Hillcountrygrump 01:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  changed why military couldn't get insurance 

message: Hillcountrygrump, I would appreciate it if you would quit deleting entire passages of this entry without any type of editing.  This goes against Wiki guidelines which I invite you to review.
Furthermore, I believe what you have been deleting is actually germane; first of all, USAA is unique when compared to pretty much every Fortune 500 company, and most definitely every major financial services company.  People looking to Wikipedia to do research into a company want MORE information, not less.  If they want to know what services USAA offers and an essentially detail-free synopsis of USAA's background, they can get that on the public USAA website.  The entry here should be unique and detailed, not a copy of what's available elsewhere.  In addition, information posted here, both on the legal structure of USAA and the identification of its competition is factually accurate and not easily found elsewhere on the web; it has been gathered both from personal experience, both as a USAA member and as a stint as a USAA employee, as well as family contacts in the financial services industry and some pretty detailed web and newspaper searches.
Even further, regarding competition, I invite you to visit any military installation and go to the commissary or exchange, and watch the credit and/or debit cards that are used to make purchases.  Visit websites that cater to the military and see who is advertising.  Review various chat rooms (for example, the Motley Fool's Military Fools section) and see what companies are being discussed as being useful financial service companies for members of the military.  Talk to service members and see who they are using for their insurance.
All the information I've included is to the best of my knowledge accurate and is also pretty balanced.  I invite any constructive edits (for example, I know I can be wordy) or formatting changes, but please stop deleting entire passages on a wholesale basis.
Swizzlez 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly is germane 

message: Swizzlez, 
Overall I like what you have done.  I'm a stickler for detail and facts.  I'm going to start working my disagreements with you one at time.  
I'm starting with the bank section.  Encyclopedias stick to the facts.  So, we can't use the statement about the Fort Sam Bank unless we can prove it.  We have to substantiate the "fact" with a reference to a public statement from an official USAA source or we have to qualify the statement with something like "allegedly".  I have trouble imagining an encyclopedia using "allegedly" in its articles...
Hillcountrygrump 15:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''One at a time''' 

message: Swizzlez, 
I made changes because you get a little wordy.  I tend to be terse.  We might need to compromize...  I don't think I took out any substance.
Hillcountrygrump 14:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''I just changed the section on target market''' 

message: Swizzlez,
First, I've been at USAA for 25 years.  I know that the culture has changed.  I also know that no company is perfect.  We got bloated and lazy (just my opinion) and had been that way for a while like 1995 to 2000.  Let me say this another way - we were bloated and lazy at the expense of the membership (just my opinion).  
Is it a fact that USAA had layoffs?  Yes.  It is also a fact that there was a handsome severance package.  Some people volunteered to be cut so they could get the severance.  A friend of mine was offered a demotion but opted to take the severance because they said "It would take years to save that much money."  
1. This seems like a rediculous level of detail to me.
2. It was almost 5 years ago.
3. We are listed in the top 100 companies to work for in 3 spaces (at least): IT, Hispanics, and Women             
4. It was 5 years ago
5. It is ancient history
Hillcountrygrump 14:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''I read the CIO article about Steve Yates and the layoff''' 

message: 1. Swizzlez, no rumors.  
2. Unless you provide a source for the symmetry I'm gonna keep taking it out.  Symmetry is your opinion, your impression.  Just state the facts, if you have them (and they are not proprietary).  I will not remove the symmetry statement if you can find a bonafide industry analyst that says it creates symmetry, or a statement by USAA saying symmetry was a desired outcome.      
3. Why did you take out the top 100 places for Hispanic women?
Hillcountrygrump 21:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''No rumors allowed ''' 

message: 1. I thought you were the one that said no wholesale deletes...  what do you call what you did? 
2. I thought you were the one that wanted to add "interesting details"...
3. I thought you were the one that said "membership details" were missing...  well here is membership demystified...
4. Oh yeah, I think it eaiser to read the way I did it...
Hillcountrygrump 18:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Swizz I don't understand you ''' 

message: You accuse me of advertizing - which by the way I find to be very crass.
I offered a pretty simplified explanation of what it takes to become a member (owner of the company) which is very unique, and has expiration dates that few people understand...  
Yet, you have added competitor information to the wiki which I consider to be advertizing for USAA's competition.  What do the competitors have to do with USAA?  How did you pick the competitors you included in the entry?  Are you advertising for GEICO?  Do you own Berkshire stock?
Hillcountrygrump 18:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Who is advertising Swizz? ''' 

message: USAA is a four-letter acronym that stands for a wide variety of organizations and at least one act of Congress:
*USAA United States Apnea Association
*USAA United Scenic Artists of America
*USAA United Services Automobile Association
 
*USAA United Sports Athletic Association
 
*USAA United States Achievement Academy
 
*USAA United States Air-Table-Hockey Association
 
*USAA United States Aircraft Appraiser (Company)
 
*USAA United States Albacore Association
 
*USAA United States Apple Association
 
*USAA United States Arbitration Act of 1925
 
*USAA United States Armwrestling Association
 
*USAA United States Axemen's Association
*USAA Urban Superintendents Association of America
At mid-night, GMT, 13 September 2006, I will be moving all United Services Automobile Association content to the correct article - which is:  United States Automobile Association.
And this article will become the acronym page it is supposed to be.
Bradford Patrick
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
200 2nd Avenue S. #358
Saint Petersburg, FL  33701-4313
1.727.231.0101
fax:+1.7172580207
email:  bpatrick@wikimedia.org
has been advised if this situation and the conduct of  LeyteWolfer, below.
Readers are invited to review this report on Robert G. Davis rent-a-shills at Wikipedia.
:I have no love for USAA one way or the other, but as I've said time, and time, and time again, I don't see the point of adding an acronym page unless Wiki has an article on one or more of the other USAA entities you mentioned above.  If Wiki has them, or hell even if you create them, then I'd gladly join your push for the acronym page.  As for Mr. Bradford Patrick, if he has any weight or opinion on the USAA acronym discussion, then he should post here, otherwise anything you post claiming Mr. Bradford Patrick said is just Hearsay.  --Brownings 12:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your long list of red links above does nothing to prove your point.  The page should remain as is until other salient articles are created.  Agree with Brownings above.--Looper5920 13:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think \a see also at the top is more appropriate--Looper5920 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Looper since this USAA is a more well-known company.  My only question is, do we add a "See Also" at the top for companies that don't even have Wiki articles?  --Brownings 20:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, while USAA is used as a trademark, the official business name (part of which is required by Texas law) is United Services Automobile Association (A Reciprocal Interinsurance Exchange).  If you are a member, you can see this on the top of the declarations page of any policy.  Also, isn't USAA a four letter acronym?  Grin.  Swizzlez 20:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A 'vandal' is trying to make a disambiguation page. I propose redirecting this page to the company's current full name, and add a disambiguation link to it. What do you think? (I don't want to do it directly since it seems to be controversial) -- lucasbfr talk 15:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Wiki has articles for another or all the other uses of USAA, then I say create the disbiguation page.  Until then leave this USAA as the USAA.  --Brownings 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Brownings and Looper5920.  I'd prefer a disambig line at the top; a disambig page would be okay too; but neither is needed until we have information on any of the other organizations.  --Allen 15:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm you're entirely right. -- lucasbfr talk 01:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This proposes an acronym page for USAA 

message: Can someone please explain to me why this particular part of the discussion did not get archived, but the response to it most certainly did?  I have a feeling one of banned user Robertjkoenig's sockpuppets archived the discussion to present the current discussion the way he wanted.  From my standpoint, any edit to any wiki page or talk page that one of his sockpuppets makes should be deleted as though it never existed, as he clearly has a soapbox-style agenda, whereas everyone else who has toyed with this page, while they may have disagreements, seems to have a factual encylopedic reference as a goal.  If leaving the residual part of the archived discussion is allowed, then all the conversations subsequent to it should, in my opinion, be left on the talk page.
By the way, RJK (sockpuppet-man), if you are allowed to continue to post here (even though you've been banned), it is not cool to edit your own entry as a response to someone else's subsequent entry, rather, continue it as a discussion below the response to your points.  That way anyone who hasn't seen the start of the discussion can follow it like a regular conversation.  Thanks.  --Swizzlez 18:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As promised, this page is now semi-protected due to continued personal attacks by the banned user Robert Koenig. Gwernol 19:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the old conversation still here?

message: Is there anyone watching this page that can lock it from edits by IP addresses?  I think the USAA article has seen enough abuse lately.  --Brownings 00:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've blocked the latest IP address under Wikipedia's three revert rules policy. For now the POV-pushing appears to have stopped. If it starts up again I am willing to protect the page. Good luck, Gwernol 00:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm all for leaving the page open (I'd like someone else to come along and help edit/organize it), and I'd like to add some kind of "history" section, I'd be for a temporary protection for awhile.  I'm not sure it would do much good because as soon as it is unprotected a sockpuppet of the same old vandal is going to start up with the same routine.  Any way to keep unregistered users from editing while allowing those who are registered the privilege of fixing it up?  That may be worth a shot if its possible.  Swizzlez 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is possible, but given the vandalism has stopped since the latest IP was blocked (and that IP can't create new accounts during the block period) it looks like you have 24 hours to fix up the article. If another IP or new users starts vandalizing I will protect. In the meantime please keep up the constructive edits, and feel free to ping me on my talk page if issues arise. Thanks, Gwernol 02:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Lock

message: I have unarchived relevant portions of the discussion, including the evidence of RJK's motivations for the disambig page and dicusssion of the "URIE" wording. --Mmx1 19:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy cow, it is still just as messy.  I say since the talk page is now semi-protected, and almost everything on it is there because of RJK and his sockpuppets, and our taking the bait and responding to it, why not just archive the whole thing now and start off with yet another blank talk page? --Swizzlez 19:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His socks keep ducking back in (and editing the archive); and I'd like people coming upon the talk page to have some inkling of the situation without having to dig into the archives. I don't think this situation is wholly resolved yet; there was another sock today: User_talk:True_to_usaa. Apparently unable to edit this talk page, he started discussing it on archives 9 and 10 and in the articlespace (which was quickly deleted).--Mmx1 19:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha.  you think the archives should be protected too?--Swizzlez 20:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've indef blocked the latest sockpuppet. I'm now going to go in and semi-protect the talk page archives. Gwernol 20:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unarchived

message: After RJK used my user page to continue his soapbox (and, funnily enough, accused me of being a sockpuppet), I initiated a suspected sockpuppet report.  Not sure if it will do any good but I figure in the future when a whole new crop of people are updating this page and getting slammed by a RJK puppet, they can at least have something to refer to in the suspected sockpuppet archive.  Please feel free to make any comments in the applicable section of the page.
Swizzlez 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppet report

message: Looks like RJK is back, although his wording is milder, the obsessive fascination with security at USAA (the bank is still located on the same campus as the rest of USAA, by the way, and many financial services companies do have security; additionally, after Sept 11, USAA's security increased, which seems appropriate given the membership/clientele.  The Citi campus in San Antonio is similar.  The credit card bank has been in existence for about the same time period as USAA FSB (see the FDIC website if you don't believe me) and I believe it was set up in Nevada due to more favorable credit legislation there as compared to Texas.  I don't really think it's relevant to mention unless it is mentioned in a manner consistent with NPOV, such as "the USAA Savings Bank issues all of USAA's credit cards and is located in Las Vegas, NV."  I think mentioning the litigation is useless, every large financial services institution has litigation, it is not illustrative of anything at USAA and seems to simply expand the article beyond what needs to be there.  For all these reasons, I reverted all of the likely sockpuppet's changes. Swizzlez 20:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RJK is back

message: Reverted because 1) I have included a link which substantiates USAA's historic eligibility requirements (see the bottom of the article).  If anyone thinks it should be taken out of the 'target market' section I think that's fine, but if so it should probably be moved to the 'history' section and not summarily dumped.  Similarly, there are articles on the internet about USAA's change in eligibililty from only military officers to enlisted; in addition, the page I linked to reflects some of the facts of the transtion/"roll-out" which offered eligibility to enlisted personnel while curtailing the right of former military officers to join USAA if they hadn't done so while on active duty.  Swizzlez 17:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for latest revert

message: Hi, I'm a former employee of USAA (left to begin my PhD program which is to say I left amicably and was not terminated and have no ax to grind.) I worked there quite a while, it is a great company as companies go. Its not perfect, but nobody is. Anyway, the following text is in the SSA entry:
the rest is distributed to each member's SSA using a formula that takes into account the member's current SSA balance as well as the amount of premium the member paid in that year.
That is not factual, it is a little depressing that I still have most of IOP (Intelligent Online Proceedures--a intra-association resource that contains all of the proceedures (I think they call them guidelines now) for the CoSA. Its you're bible for whatever company or department you're in.) memorized but the amount distributed to a member's SSA is dependant on only the amount of premium they paid that year, their current SSA balance is not a variable. For example, last year I think ~14% of the premium paid was assigned to each members SSA and at the end of the year ~5% of the entire balance was sent back to the member. Additionally, it is not mentioned but USAA now restricts essentially all of the business it does to only those eligible for P&C policies (mil and ex-dependants). Which is to say that you can't get banking, or investments unless you're eligible or already had them. I'm not sure the wisdom of that move, but it was probably popular with the members -- people like the idea of exclusivity. Most representatives on the insurance side are actually in fact insurance agents, as they have to be licensed insurance agents to issue policies in most states. So technically the phrase that they don't sell through agents is false -- they do but only because they have to. No comissions, just like other directs (progressive, geico).
Anyway, don't have a user ID so I can't edit -- anyone want to make some of those changes? 24.219.97.39 04:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Welcome!  Get a user ID - it's easy, no spam is generated, and it actually provides a little more anonymity than you would have without one.  Thanks for the input. Swizzlez 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy 

message: User:Hillcountrygrump, you continue to edit the article as though it is a resource for people to click through and figure out whether they are eligible for USAA services, much like it's some kind of advertisement for USAA.  The article could already use some editing, but instead of making things clearer, you REMOVE information that is difficult to find elsewhere (such as regarding the business structure of USAA) and add in information that is EASY to determine elsewhere (such as just going to USAA's homepage and plugging your information into the eligibility forms).  Once again, (and I say this holding USAA in the highest esteem): THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR USAA.  IT IS NOT A WAY TO FUNNEL BUSINESS TO USAA.  IT IS NOT A CHEERLEADING SITE FOR USAA.  It is an encyclopedic reference and I daresay should be used to summarize deep background information that can't easily be found elsewhere on the internet as a priority, with other goals (such as summarizing information easily found on or determined from the USAA website and posting it here) much lower on the list.
Also, if you insist on continuing to post eligibility requirements, you're gonna have to back them up with a citation.  I have never heard that there was a one-year time limit from the day one leaves their parent's home to establish a USAA policy, and, in light of their recent national media campaign to capture the business of people who may not even realize they are eligible for USAA's services, I think that, in fact, there is not a time limit for adult children of USAA members to establish eligibility.  However, since there's no source cited to back up your information, I can't really tell.
Swizzlez 15:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for Revert 

message: I don't know of a published statement on eligibility, but ask any service representative and they will explain that there is a time limit.  So, call and ask a sevice representative before deleting it!!!
I think it is hard rule to explain.  When you experience any one of many events like seperating from the military or retiring from the military, or moving out of your parents home (permanantly - not while off at college), or getting divored from someone that is a member, or any other of many events you have the rest of that year, then the whole next year to get a P&C product. 
If you don't get a P&C product in that time frame, you lose your chance to get USAA services.  You also lose it for your decendants.  Now tell me - what other companys do that?  It is unique or extremely rate and worthy of description WITHOUT being labeled advertizing.
About advertizing...
First, since advertizing includes brand management any and every interaction a company has with a potential customer is considered by some business experts to be advertizing - IBM called those interactions "A MOMENT OF TRUTH".  That means that this "ENCYCLOPEDIA" is advertizing for many companys whether people like it or not.  
Second, I don't know why USAA has the time limit, but they do.  It is a fact.  Call and ask a rep.  BUT, it is hardly a SELLING POINT.  It is not a feature.  It is not a price statement.  It is not comparison to competitors in any way.  
Third, you seem to think it is important to explain that USAA is a direct company instead of Agent based.  That, dear Swizz, is called a sales distribution model by LOMA (highly recognized insurance professional association - www.loma.org).  Business 101 - Sales and marketing and advertizing all overlap right?  Should the section on direct versus agent distribution model be pulled since it is advertizing?
MY POINT - Name other companies that say "we just started the count down on your ability to do business with us".  
MY CHALLENGE TO YOU - Your defense of having competitor data on the USAA entry was that people need to know about other providers (*** now that sounds like something a USAA competitor would say ***).  
But, you don't think that those same consumers that are eligible to do business with USAA (almost always the best value and usually the cheapest insurance) need to know that their time to do business with USAA is limited.  *** That sounds like something a competitor would want to hide***.
Hillcountrygrump 13:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I was an employee at USAA. I am no longer working there, I posted above about some inaccuracies. This is also inaccurate. There is no time limit on establishing a policy if you're a ex-dependant of a USAA member. In some cases there can be a discount available on an ex-dependant's auto policy (Safe Driver Discount) which lowers the premium of a child's auto policy if they had a good driving record on their parents auto policy. There is a time limit for this discount as the intention was to ensure that there is no period where the kid could go crazy after leaving parents policy but prior to establishing their own, but I don't remember what it is. There is a time limit on establishing your eligibility if you're in the military. You have to get your first P&C product (auto, renters, home, etc) within 2 years of your retirement/seperation otherwise you will not be eligible. 24.219.97.39 02:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TIME LIMIT on eligibility 

message: Ok. Fine. I get it. You are the undisputed expert and your opinion is beyond question.  Also, mass deletes are only acceptable when you do it.  Right?
THIS IS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR GEICO OR ANY OTHER ENTITY.  IT IS NOT A WAY TO FUNNEL BUUSINESS TO ANY ENTITY.  IT IS NOT A CHEERLEADING SITE FOR ANY COMPANY.  If you want to explain to people what their options are then create a separate entry for the various industries and list all the companies you want.  
This ENTRY MUST BE ABOUT USAA ONLY!  It is not titled USAA AND OTHER COMPANIES.
207.155.4.175 04:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said many times before, many other entries cite competition, usually not it its own dedicated section about competition, but throughout the entry. For example, if you read about American Express, Mastercard and Visa will be mentioned. I would suggest that you pick a series of about 10 large businesses at random and read their Wiki entries. My guess it that you will likely find at least half of them mention competition in some way. I'm sorry you feel that keeping the entry from being purely about USAA is somehow rude or incorrect, but I'm afraid you're in the minority.  I think it would be better if somehow the information was merged into the rest of the article, but I've tried that before as well and you didn't like it.  Swizzlez 15:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for removing competition section 

message: How about a section on Notable USAA Members (from USAA Magazine back cover)
* Rodney Yee (Yoga teacher, "Yoga for Beginners" video)
* Chris Frantz and Tina Weymouth (musicans, Talking Heads, Tom Tom Club)
* Brooke Channon (cable TV producer/host, "Sensible Chic")
* Carl Brashear (1st African-American graduate of Navy Dive School)
* Jeremy Wariner (double Olympic gold medalist Athens 2004)
* Dan Peek (musican, America)
* Deanie Parish (B-26 pilot, Women's Airforce Service Pilot)
* Kelly Perdew (2004 The Apprentice winner)
* Blair Underwood (TV and movie actor)
* Robin Roberts (ABC news anchor)
* Neil Patrick Harris (TV actor, Doogie Howser MD)
(I am missing 4 issues 2003-6) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.24.175.36 (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those people, like Master Chief Brashear are deceased. 24.160.146.230 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable USAA Members

message: I am impressed with this wikipage. This is much bigger and much better than most other financial organizations I have seen.
According to: wikiscanner.virgil.gr
The most anon edits have been from Dusseldorf Germany, next is SLC (First Digital), then San Antonio (Stic.net). 
The below edits are from the USAA office in San Antonio, all are from 1 to 2 years ago:
Usaa (San Antonio, Texas) - 9 
167.24.104.150 20363184_____________________2005-08-05 21:10:45 
167.24.104.150 20363316_____________________2005-08-05 21:12:42 
167.24.104.150 29237058_____________________2005-11-25 21:28:44 
167.24.104.150 73967291___previous version__2006-09-05 16:11:19 
167.24.104.150 73968004_____________________2006-09-05 16:15:43 
167.24.104.150 73975698_____________________2006-09-05 17:05:34 
167.24.104.150 73979701_____________________2006-09-05 17:30:31 
167.24.104.150 74009635 please be impartial, this is an encyclopedia. Not a site to flame those companies you do not like 2006-09-05 20:17:19 
167.24.104.150 74145302_____________________2006-09-06 15:21:23
Past edits to the page:
*Litigation links removed 
*Large Amount of data removed: 
*Criticism section changes: 
Travb (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: USAA employee who edited this page

message: User:Jkp1187 removed: 
==Criticism==   
In the 1970s some employees tried to form a union and could be seen marching in front of the headquarters entrance on Fredericksburg Road in San Antonio.    
In 2001, USAA started a reorganization that resulted in approximately 1,400 workers being laid off, many of whom were Information technology specialists. Shortly after the layoff, but several years after USAA had started using offshore personnel, the local media reported that USAA was outsourcing some of its IT work to Indian based companies.
That is okay, because this section is unsourced and pretty weak. Then again the entire article is unsourced.  Travb (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, the latter is a fact for the majority of articles on Wikipedia.  - Ageekgal 04:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the fact that USAA exists, that it is headquartered in San Antonio, that the abbreviation stands for "United Servicemans' Automobile Association", and the sort of banking/insurance products they offer are common knowledge (and can easily be verified by a trip to USAA's website, or a call to their corporate offices.)  Whether or not USAA employees tried to unionize in (vaguely) "the 1970s" or whether or not USAA laid off employees in 2001 does not fall into that category and needs a source. Jkp1187 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed criticism section

message: I started editing this page today after seeing a few grammatical errors, but I stopped after reading the whole page. This entire article seems to be an advertisement versus the usual articles I see on Wikipedia about banks and other insurance companies. There aren't any sources backing up major parts and there a several sections containing useless information to the casual reader. I am writing to suggest this article needs to be shortened. I also wonder whether people from USAA or members are editing this page. I believe that is a conflict of interest. I hope this isn't going back to an old discussion, but I am open to what you all think.
RavenWriter (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this article an advertisement versus other pages about banks and insurance companies?