![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Speedy deletion tag and merge tag were removed after reviewing admin User: Stephen and User: DGG approved page – See view history
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.162.66 ( talk) 02:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:NPOV guidelines recommend avoiding sections like "controversy" which are inherently POV. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 05:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
No offence, but including a question by a minor member of parliament as if it is fact and removing the complete dismissal of it by the responsible minister is not remotely NPOV editing.-- Insider201283 ( talk) 05:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
FG222 - please outline what your problems with sources are. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 17:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
About your Third Opinion request: Your request has been removed from the Third Opinion project because there has been no mutual discussion of your dispute on this page. The guidelines of the project say, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." If you still need help, you should should feel free to move on to some other form of dispute resolution. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 20:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you wrote a message in this discussion (did not even notify me in talk), then in just over 1 hour complained I didn't respond? Some people need to eat and do other things outside of WP, that is hardly a "problem".
Insider is currently in COI discussions.
To answer the issue, they are not wholesale deletes, they are reversions back to the stable version of how it has been the last month (aside from bad edits/vandalism), before Insider came in and added all of these unverifiable, non RS sources (including references to his own site) and other SPS refs, and put a positive spin on everything removing neutrality and turning it in to a puff piece. Financeguy222 ( talk) 03:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect. Take a step back, and think about what youre posting to avoid the impression you have POV and not adhering to the rules. Some of these exact sources (such as those from your own sites) have been discussed with you in the past ad nauseam, and it was found they were disallowed. To call it absurd is absurd itself, and I wont waste time on reading back the rules to you which have been done multiple times in the past in particular with Network TwentyOne article for these exact issues. Do we really need to repeat the discussion? These articles always end up sounding like puff pieces when you are involved, and many of the sources are from SPS and/or sources/claims are usually unverifiable. It's best to keep this article encyclopaedic, not a promotional tool. Happy to have your claims mediated again, but don't want to waste other editors time. Financeguy222 ( talk) 05:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Every single one is well and truly WP:RS. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 05:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It's my understanding that Amway Australia and Amway New Zealand operate as one entity/one market. If there's no objection I propose we rename this article to Amway Australia & New Zealand and setup redirects to it. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 08:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Speedy deletion tag and merge tag were removed after reviewing admin User: Stephen and User: DGG approved page – See view history
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.162.66 ( talk) 02:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:NPOV guidelines recommend avoiding sections like "controversy" which are inherently POV. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 05:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
No offence, but including a question by a minor member of parliament as if it is fact and removing the complete dismissal of it by the responsible minister is not remotely NPOV editing.-- Insider201283 ( talk) 05:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
FG222 - please outline what your problems with sources are. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 17:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
About your Third Opinion request: Your request has been removed from the Third Opinion project because there has been no mutual discussion of your dispute on this page. The guidelines of the project say, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." If you still need help, you should should feel free to move on to some other form of dispute resolution. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 20:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you wrote a message in this discussion (did not even notify me in talk), then in just over 1 hour complained I didn't respond? Some people need to eat and do other things outside of WP, that is hardly a "problem".
Insider is currently in COI discussions.
To answer the issue, they are not wholesale deletes, they are reversions back to the stable version of how it has been the last month (aside from bad edits/vandalism), before Insider came in and added all of these unverifiable, non RS sources (including references to his own site) and other SPS refs, and put a positive spin on everything removing neutrality and turning it in to a puff piece. Financeguy222 ( talk) 03:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect. Take a step back, and think about what youre posting to avoid the impression you have POV and not adhering to the rules. Some of these exact sources (such as those from your own sites) have been discussed with you in the past ad nauseam, and it was found they were disallowed. To call it absurd is absurd itself, and I wont waste time on reading back the rules to you which have been done multiple times in the past in particular with Network TwentyOne article for these exact issues. Do we really need to repeat the discussion? These articles always end up sounding like puff pieces when you are involved, and many of the sources are from SPS and/or sources/claims are usually unverifiable. It's best to keep this article encyclopaedic, not a promotional tool. Happy to have your claims mediated again, but don't want to waste other editors time. Financeguy222 ( talk) 05:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Every single one is well and truly WP:RS. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 05:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It's my understanding that Amway Australia and Amway New Zealand operate as one entity/one market. If there's no objection I propose we rename this article to Amway Australia & New Zealand and setup redirects to it. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 08:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)