Talk:SMS.ac, Inc.

message: Raga states that the link spammer site is not important enough to have a page.  What makes them important enough to have a ink at all other than the link to their spam PDF page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.54.18 (talk • contribs) 
:I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that I'm getting pretty tired of signing your comments for you. It was understandable for the first month or two, but this point you have been around long enough to learn that ~~~~ at the end of your comment will sign your name. Themindset 16:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raga Edit to add link spam back 

message: In order for criticism to be in an article, and to be feature as such it has to meet certain criteria. WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, the criticism has to come from a reliable source, and they have to identify it is as such. There also has to be a demonstration that the viewpoint that item x is a criticism of subject y is not a trivial viewpoint. This cannot be done without showing reliable sources criticizing them over the items in question. As well WP:NOT wikipedia is not a soapbox, and original research is not acceptable here. Digging up a line from their ToS and calling it criticism is the opinion of the editor adding it. They're presenting a fact (that line from the ToS) in such a way to build a case that favours their viewpoint without citing a reliable source who holds that view. Every single item in the criticism section currently fails those and I'm going to remove them. If someone can provide reliable sources (not forums, not blogs, not other self-published material) which criticizes them on any of those points, those particular points can be reinstated.--Crossmr 02:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have blanked it since it was still unsourced and basically a soapbox. I'm not defending this company, far from it (trust me), but references and citations are a must. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Hi. I have removed this article from the above List, due to it primarily being about a mobile telephone company and not an article dedicated to the social network aspect of its website. If a dedicated article were to be created, a link to it might be placed in the List successfully. If anyone has issues or comments relating to this action, could they please post to the List's talk page, or alternatively my own. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 00:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of social networking websites]] 

message: Without adding to articles saying that SMS.ac is a scam or anything do we really need to have an Accolades section? That *does* make it sound like some kind of an ad. Furthermore, I think it would be enough to simply state that there is a Consumer Bill of Rights without going into it; this is like advertising its policies or something. This comprimise doesn't say anything negative and doesn't give the company any lee-way as far as advertising.
---192.94.73.2 02:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If any one disagrees, say so in the next few days.--66.93.220.66 05:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accolades 

message: Fanbox needs an un biased fact filled article. I came to wikipedia searching for information about fanbox.com, and I was redirected to SMS.ac Inc.'s article, a found a one line comment, 
2007
SMS.ac creates the spin-off site fanbox.com, a spam-driven social networking site.
 
Shouldn't there be a little more content to the article for fanbox.com and/or at least have its own article? Badbez (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fanbox vs Other [[social networking]] sites 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on SMS.ac, Inc.. 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/20101121132701/http://consumerfraudreporting.org/FanboxScam2.php to http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/FanBoxScam2.php
*Added  tag to http://corp.fanbox.com/products.php
*Added  tag to http://corp.fanbox.com/aboutus.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927233154/http://www.fastcompany.com/online/62/speedometer.html to http://www.fastcompany.com/online/62/speedometer.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722011843/http://www.sandiego6.com:80/news/local/story/Former-Employees-Frustrated-with-Downtown-based/gCLA87OFxE-53GTQ8OoEGA.cspx? to http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/story/Former-Employees-Frustrated-with-Downtown-based/gCLA87OFxE-53GTQ8OoEGA.cspx
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) 08:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on SMS.ac, Inc.. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.techvibes.com/company-directory/sms.ac-inc.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927024739/http://www.fiercewireless.com/Fierce15/2005 to http://www.fiercewireless.com/Fierce15/2005
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/story/Former-Employees-Frustrated-with-Downtown-based/gCLA87OFxE-53GTQ8OoEGA.cspx
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) 04:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article is mostly written in the present tense, implying that the company is still operating and providing the services described.  However, the sms.ac website has closed down and the domain is apparently for sale.  Apart from this single statement about the latter point, there's nothing indicating that the company or service has become defunct.
The History section has nothing after 2009.  So what is the current status of the company?  And what is it (or its successor) doing now?  A quick web search reveals nothing meaningful. — Smjg (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status?