Jmr50

"Poor Quality of Sources on AOL Page" -- SAY WHAT?

While I agree that as a whole Wikipedia articles should avoid "unreliable" sources and cites, a lot of the cites you marked as "unreliable" or "verify credibility" are just flat out mislabeled as such, especially in dealing with the October 2007 layoffs. I personally read the press release with Randy Falco's declaration that layoffs would start "immediately" (because I got it in my interoffice e-mail, as all AOL employees do before a major personnel action is undertaken), I personally witnessed the signs on the conference room doors (because my office was right across from one of them, and a co-worker snapped the shot that appeared on many business blogs that day), and I personally heard employees calling it "Bloody Tuesday" (because over 750 people from one AOL complex got let go that day, including me, which is how I became an unwilling witness to history). The references you cited as "unreliable" (which are just coincidentally entries from the much-derided new news sources called "blogs") are just reporting what actually HAPPENED. Therefore, I've removed the "unreliable" markings regarding the Oct 2007 layoffs and am requesting, as an actual eyewitness to the events of AOL's "Bloody Tuesday", that you neither re-label the same sources nor revert the changes.

FWIW, next time, take the time and actually READ the blog articles in question, don't just assume they're unreliable. As you've now read, that's an invalid assumption, which can make an "ass" out of "umption".  :) Scarletsmith (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)