![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I note that some of this article as it existed previously had been removed or substantially reduced. I have edited it further - partially reinstating some of this material, but this edit has been repeatedly reverted without explanation.
To justify the edits I have made:
1. Changing "Membership of AIPP" to "AIPP Membership". Why use three words when you can say the same thing with two? Brevity is generally good practice in written English. I think "AIPP Membership" reads better, and that most readers would agree.
2. Reinstating the section on the AIPP resignation/expulsion issue. As it was, this stated the positions of Bulgarian Dreams and the AIPP in their own words - which is about as clear an explanation as there can be under the circumstances. Simply saying that Bulgarian Dreams resigned their membership and the AIPP subsequently expelled them would leave many readers scratching their heads.
3. Removing the sentence "Bulgarian Dreams were the sales agent only for these properties". This does not fit well in its current location and is largely redundant as the company is described in the article as 'selling properties'. To clarify this I have changed the first line of the article to be more specific and refer to the company as a property sales agent.
4. Removing the sentence "Purchasers who had used Bulgarian Dreams were contacted individually by letter with the contact details of Bulgarian Dreams' smaller Sofia office which remains open to provide purely customer service support to existing purchasers." This had a long-standing 'citation needed' flag and no reference was provided for this statement.
5. Expanding 'legal action' section. This includes material from a September 2010 article from the Sofia Echo / Capital newspaper. This is probably the first time in eighteen months that Bulgarian Dreams has featured in the media so it is very relevant as an update on the situation.
6. Removing the "at all" from the sentence "To date no subsequent action at all has been reported as being taken." These two words are completely redundant here. Why use 13 words when you can use 11? Again, brevity is generally good practice in written English.
7. Split the references into two columns.
I would suggest that it would be neither productive nor courteous to continue reverting these changes. SofiaSoGood ( talk) 17:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The whole thing seems to be just media coverage without any real concrete evidence against Robert Jenkin or Bulgarian Dreams. With so many developers going bankrupt currently I can't see the difference between this company as a sales agent and the many others that have sold property all over the world. A significant amount of all off-plan property sold in the last 2 years is in delay and incomplete because of the credit crunch. They seem to have been a larger company in their sector but that is all. How is this case different from all the others except for the vocal laments of this agents' customers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.216.211 ( talk) 13:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I question the repeated removal of the reference to OffplanCollective.com. In a section entitled "owners' groups" is it not appropriate to refer to owners' groups, whether BD-sanctioned or otherwise? The insistence on including no groups other than the official Bulgarian Dreams forum indicates, to me, a lack of neutrality. SofiaSoGood ( talk) 06:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Recently I changed 'positive news coverage' to 'news coverage' near the beginning of this article, and this has now been changed back - the justification being that negative news coverage is referred to subsequently, and to be balanced the earlier reports should be referred to as positive. Point taken to a certain extent, although I do not entirely agree. Equally I think squabbling over it would be fairly pointless. To explain, the reason I changed it was that most of the early reports were publicity driven, with the media reporting Bulgaria positively, saying it had great prospects, while coverage of Bulgarian Dreams specifically was more neutral (simply stating that the company was in the market, selling properties, and was reporting great opportunities for buyers). In my opinion, 'positive coverage' reports good performance from the company and/or cites good reviews from customers. 'Negative coverage' reports poor performance and/or highlights the plight of unhappy customers. Therefore I would call the earlier reports mostly neutral, and later ones mostly negative. Wotnot ( talk) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going a bit off topic here for which I apologise, but some might find this amusing: http://rainbowbulgarianproperties.com/html/terms.html This page refers to Berkeley Square Trading on the second line although it does not appear to be in any way related. One possible explanation might be that someone has borrowed the T&Cs and been a bit overzealous with copy & paste(?!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkBansko ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bulgarian Dreams. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I note that some of this article as it existed previously had been removed or substantially reduced. I have edited it further - partially reinstating some of this material, but this edit has been repeatedly reverted without explanation.
To justify the edits I have made:
1. Changing "Membership of AIPP" to "AIPP Membership". Why use three words when you can say the same thing with two? Brevity is generally good practice in written English. I think "AIPP Membership" reads better, and that most readers would agree.
2. Reinstating the section on the AIPP resignation/expulsion issue. As it was, this stated the positions of Bulgarian Dreams and the AIPP in their own words - which is about as clear an explanation as there can be under the circumstances. Simply saying that Bulgarian Dreams resigned their membership and the AIPP subsequently expelled them would leave many readers scratching their heads.
3. Removing the sentence "Bulgarian Dreams were the sales agent only for these properties". This does not fit well in its current location and is largely redundant as the company is described in the article as 'selling properties'. To clarify this I have changed the first line of the article to be more specific and refer to the company as a property sales agent.
4. Removing the sentence "Purchasers who had used Bulgarian Dreams were contacted individually by letter with the contact details of Bulgarian Dreams' smaller Sofia office which remains open to provide purely customer service support to existing purchasers." This had a long-standing 'citation needed' flag and no reference was provided for this statement.
5. Expanding 'legal action' section. This includes material from a September 2010 article from the Sofia Echo / Capital newspaper. This is probably the first time in eighteen months that Bulgarian Dreams has featured in the media so it is very relevant as an update on the situation.
6. Removing the "at all" from the sentence "To date no subsequent action at all has been reported as being taken." These two words are completely redundant here. Why use 13 words when you can use 11? Again, brevity is generally good practice in written English.
7. Split the references into two columns.
I would suggest that it would be neither productive nor courteous to continue reverting these changes. SofiaSoGood ( talk) 17:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The whole thing seems to be just media coverage without any real concrete evidence against Robert Jenkin or Bulgarian Dreams. With so many developers going bankrupt currently I can't see the difference between this company as a sales agent and the many others that have sold property all over the world. A significant amount of all off-plan property sold in the last 2 years is in delay and incomplete because of the credit crunch. They seem to have been a larger company in their sector but that is all. How is this case different from all the others except for the vocal laments of this agents' customers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.216.211 ( talk) 13:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I question the repeated removal of the reference to OffplanCollective.com. In a section entitled "owners' groups" is it not appropriate to refer to owners' groups, whether BD-sanctioned or otherwise? The insistence on including no groups other than the official Bulgarian Dreams forum indicates, to me, a lack of neutrality. SofiaSoGood ( talk) 06:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Recently I changed 'positive news coverage' to 'news coverage' near the beginning of this article, and this has now been changed back - the justification being that negative news coverage is referred to subsequently, and to be balanced the earlier reports should be referred to as positive. Point taken to a certain extent, although I do not entirely agree. Equally I think squabbling over it would be fairly pointless. To explain, the reason I changed it was that most of the early reports were publicity driven, with the media reporting Bulgaria positively, saying it had great prospects, while coverage of Bulgarian Dreams specifically was more neutral (simply stating that the company was in the market, selling properties, and was reporting great opportunities for buyers). In my opinion, 'positive coverage' reports good performance from the company and/or cites good reviews from customers. 'Negative coverage' reports poor performance and/or highlights the plight of unhappy customers. Therefore I would call the earlier reports mostly neutral, and later ones mostly negative. Wotnot ( talk) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going a bit off topic here for which I apologise, but some might find this amusing: http://rainbowbulgarianproperties.com/html/terms.html This page refers to Berkeley Square Trading on the second line although it does not appear to be in any way related. One possible explanation might be that someone has borrowed the T&Cs and been a bit overzealous with copy & paste(?!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TalkBansko ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bulgarian Dreams. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)