Talk:Lipozene

What Now?

I just edited this in an attempt to make it more encyclopedic. Someone else can handle the horrible typo errors and bad grammar and capitalization. I would like a more experienced user to go over it, definitely. 09 March 2014

hows it look, where does it need to go? --Bloody trauma (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

This article, or "definition", found this page was informative. It details, however briefly, differences from the info-mercials one sees on television and what it actually does. Definitive weight loss discrepancies and concrete legal actions against the company or legal representatives, should raise a flag to the average consumer utilizing the Internet to research product information, legitimacy and viable options to purchase or not. Hugh.Torres (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Hugh Hugh.Torres (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete?

The page says it is nominated for deletion but there is no discussion of it here in the discussion page. Since no reason for deletion is given, and I see no reason to delete, I removed the tag. Don't be a philistine.

--Jon in California 6 Jan 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.73.9 (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the advertisement and no reference tags. This article has undergone numerous rewrites where an anonymous or new user returns the article to it's current advertisement state. I propose reverting the article back to the 00:08, 5 October 2007 edit by 69.140.53.66. So far, that is the most impartial version of the content. ChamPro 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Although I am posting this four years later, the article still sounds like an advertisement. I highly recommend that the article be re-written from an objective perspective and then locked to prevent further modification, especially for this product's interests. However, for now, while the article is still freely editable, I'll post the "written like an advertisement" tag. The last good edition of this article in my opinion was on 11 August 2011 at 7:44. In several days, if there is no attempt to re-write the article, I will revert it to that date unless objected to and discussed herein. -Amanisdude (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The link to the PDF under "References" is a dead link. 68.63.215.207 (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell is Phil Benuto? Either cite this guy, informing us of his relevance, or strike that last sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scola (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw the Lipozene commercial on tv and immediately searched it on Wikipedia to see what it really was. I don't know if that establishes notability, since it's a single user's anecdote, but I figured I'd speak up. I think it should stay. -Happyturtle (no wiki account) 68.57.92.81 (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Commercial Claim

I believe the reference to percentage of weight loss states that 78% of weight loss was fat. As an editorial comment on the ad, all the information provided is very basic and a pre-teen should be able to make an intelligent decision regarding the claims. I would assume their is more information available regarding this product.Poidogfan (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)JP

Lipozene...

In April 2010 this article was recreated as Lipozene... and then moved here and merged ϢereSpielChequers 12:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Individuals should know about this fake product. It's actual ingredients and false advertising like other dietary supplements listed on Wikipedia. See category:dietary supplements--Ron John (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC).

If your purpose in creating this page is to denounce the drug, then you can never write it neutrally. However, it seems that you are not advertising it, so I am changing the tag from an ad tag to an attack tag, as all you seek to do is disparage the subject. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not my goal. I'm trying to provide all factual information about this item. This is not an ad.--Ron John (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case the article needs a bit of work. It would also need moving to Lipozene which is currently a redirect. I'm afraid I have to go offline now, but I'll look by later. ϢereSpielChequers 09:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now moved and restored the history of Lipozene which itself had been a redirect since the AFD. I have no particular view as to whether the subject is now notable enough for its own article, but Lipozene... and Lipozene are one and the same. The History of the article now contains the former article, parts of which could be restored if that helps balance and expand what we have. ϢereSpielChequers 12:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Written Like an Advertisement / Progressive Article Degradation

This article sounds like a promotion for the product it covers, and it appears to be degrading over time. (Compare to 11 August 2011). I highly recommend that the article be re-written from an objective perspective with additional details and then locked to prevent further modification, especially by proponents of this product's interests. For now, however, while the article is still freely editable, I'll post the "written like an advertisement" tag and leave it open for discussion. -The last good edition of this article, in my opinion, was on 11 August 2011 at 7:44 or earlier. In several days, if there is no attempt to re-write the article, I will revert it to that date and time unless objected to and discussed herein. -Amanisdude (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Immediate Reversion: After further review, it seems apparent that the article should be reverted its pre-simplification state as it was on 11 August 2011 at 7:44. While this version does have grammatical, punctuational, and referential errors, posting an edited version of this article would probably offer better encyclopedic information on the product. Therefore, I will revert the article to this date and time immediately and re-incorporate important edits that have been made since then. Any objections to this reversion should be addressed here. -Amanisdude (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Implicit in my previous post was the concern that this article is not written from a neutral point of view. Therefore, I will also nominate this article for and add a POV tag to the header, which I hope will also spark discussion and major article review. Further, there is the concern that this article is being edited to remove material which may be detrimental to product's marketing. (See the 11 August 2011 edition to compare to the article's current state.) -Amanisdude (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No Need For This Article

If nothing else will be added (history of) then the redirect to glucomannan (and from there to konjac) should be sufficient enough as it is noted as being Lipozene's "only" ingredient. A Google search for Lipozene could bring up a Glucomannan result where the user will find the already limited blurb on Lipozene in its article. Qui?104.129.204.66 (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)11/15/2016