User talk:Icerat/Archive 3

NO one said you were paid by Quixtar. You are compensated by Quixtar "groups". That is a fact. You avoided the truth by twisting what was said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickstar7 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

that is a complete and utter lie --Insider201283 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the PROPER link clean-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickstar7 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Users

Just to make sure that it's official, please know that the posting of real life names of users who choose to be anonymous is considered a very serious disruption, and may lead to banning. Wikipedia:Outing Please be more careful in the future. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, was a late night post on a different site that I should have thought about further. I deleted it off my site as soon as Knervma pointed it out. As I'm sure you noticed he repeatedly posted my name to the main Wikipedia article, including claims I was perverting the course of justice. I reported this to oversight and have received no response at all and my name and various personal details remains in the edit history. He has confirmed his identity in his talk pages, though annoyingly referring to himself in the third person. I'm curious as to why I get a talk page "just to know it's official" for posting his identity on another website, yet you've seen no reason to say anything to him when he posted my name and other personal details in the main text of a wikipedia article? --Insider201283 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

--Insider201283 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, I hadn't noticed - I took the article off my watchlist for a while. (Despite appearances I'm not omniscient). I'll warn him too and see if I can get these posting from both of you oversighted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I made no posting on wikipedia with regards his identity, it was on my own blog where I speculated as to his identity briefly in an article about Amway and internet critics. I edited it as soon as knervma pointed out the problem. So no oversight needed on it on this site. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be gone soon, but if I recall correctly you posted his last name in an edit summary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're right, completely forgot about that one. It was entirely an inadvertent slip. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So uh..I gotta question

I've noticed that you've been editing on many of the pages I've been looking at. Just wondering what the status of such pages were as far as being re-done, or updated, or anything (xs, nutrilite, etc). I've read through all the *cough* crap *cough* in the discussion about said pages, thought I can't seem to see where much change has taken place on the pages themselves. I'd like to go about revising them (with references), but I wasn't sure what the status of people's opinions on that idea were. Any thoughts? Infero Veritas (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you've got references, go ahead and revise, but if they're a "pro" perspective, don't be surprised if they're challenged to the extent possible on wikipedia. I think in this area the main task that needs doing is a complete professional, academic-like rewriting of the Amway article, including merger of Quixtar information. It'll be a fairly big job though, particularly ensuring quality sources. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I have references, but as far as what other people will deem to be "pro" versus neutral is yet to be determined. I'm not quite sure what the reference made regarding BevNet was (on someone's talk page being angry), but that's an independent source. There are others of course, but that's the main one. In regards to the re-write of the Amway article, I agree completely. The time aspect of it is a bit a bummer, but it might be a possibility. I'm currently finishing up a re-write of the Nutrilite article, but I'm up for a challenge. Infero Veritas (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if it's the same issue or not, but previously there was a cite to BevNet, but the cite was actually a paid advertisement by XS, not a BevNet article per se. --Insider201283 (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That may very well be what it was, I tend to ignore stupid when I see it coming my way. So when I read the part about BevNet and not being a credible resource I stopped reading :) You seem to have been on wiki a bit longer than I have. So per my post on the amway merger discussion, what are the chances of actually agreeing on what's considered a "credible" source or not?Infero Veritas (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:RS and WP:Verifiability to get an idea of what's needed --Insider201283 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Euromonitor_logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Euromonitor_logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Euromonitor International

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Euromonitor International, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/61/61270.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bill Britt‎

Hi Insider201283, My large issue with the Bill Britt details that you have re-inserted is that they are unverified allegations. I can sue anyone for anything and create such a document. Can I then add the allegations I've made to a Wikipedia article ? I think not. Wikipedia should not be a collection of untried allegations about living people - regardless of the seeming merits of the allegations. A document written by a plaintiff in a court case is not a reliable source, the court's final judgement is. In this case you have re-added allegations from an unreliable source to a WP:BLP article...not a good result - Peripitus (Talk) 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I mostly agree, but the text is written as allegations and talking about the court case. If you have something in wikipedia policies that directly discuss the use of court documents in this way I'd love to know about it because the same issue arises in other articles I'm dealing with. Previously when I've looked into it, I was told filed court cases were enough. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Court documents - produced from legal rulings - are fine. What this is though is a self-published document as filed with the court - not published by the court. Refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 where it states Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons. Seems very clear and and unambiguous. Just because I filed my allegations as part of a court case does not make them reliable and does not change that they are self-published and not reviewed by anyone that would be considered a reliable source - Peripitus (Talk) 02:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I entirely agree with this. It's just in the past I've had wiki admins defending the use of such documents when I thought they should be removed, though in a slightly different context. The issue there is the definition of "living persons". Technically, or at least legally, this could include active companies. Reviewing the talk there doesn't seem to have been consensus, at least that I could find. My guess is if there's been no third party RS then it's not notable anyway. Thoughts or further reading for me? --Insider201283 (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Euromonitor logo.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Euromonitor logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Amway advert tag

I moved the contents of this note to Talk:Amway, and thanks for the guidance since I have no experience with communications between contributors.Ineuw (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Learn what is covered by RS

Jon Taylor has MBA degree from Brigham Young University and a Ph.D. in Applied Psychology from the University of Utah and is used as a reference in Wong, Michelle. A. (2002) "China's Direct Marketing Ban: A Case Study of China's Response to Capital-Based Social Networks" Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal regarding MLMs.

Robert L FitzPatrick is used as a reference in Koehn, Daryl (2001) "Ethical Issues Connected with Multi-Level Marketing Schemes" [Journal of Business Ethics] 29:153-160

Being used in peer-reviewed journals fits the established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications requirement about using self-published material.--BruceGrubb ([User talk:BruceGrubb|talk]) 09:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide me with quotes from those sources backing up them citing him as an expert in MLM, and not just mentioning him as a critic? --Insider201283 (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not how you denote someone as an expert. Dunnel and Binford certainly don't call each other experts in anthropology--they don't need to as in their field they are already recognized as such. Bloch, Brian (1996) "Multilevel marketing: what’s the catch?" Journal of Consumer Marketing 13:4 pg18 - 26 brought up similar issues. Are you now going to ask if Bloch is an expert in MLM?--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Being spoken about by someone in an article is not the same as being author of the article and having it peer-reviewed and published. If we get into allowing supposed "experts" like FitzPatrick and Taylor, then we also have to allow others like Len Clements, who is a confirmed court-appointed MLM expert and has been cited by various 3rd party RS. I haven't read the Bloch article so I can't speak to it, but clearly published journal articles and non-self-published books should be the preferred sources, and as you've just pointed out with Bloch, they exist. Are you able to send me a copy of the Bloch article? I'd love to read it. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Since Taylor was used in a peer reviewed paper as well having his idea archived by the FTC you are going to have to deal with him. I trust I have shown just how limited in using Google to claim something didn't happen is? When it can't find two entire programs at a conference using information gained from Internet Archive you know you have problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm ... EVERYONE who wrote to the FTC had their "ideas" archived. The fact you think that is some kind of evidence says a lot about where you're coming from. Even if Taylor's was considered an "expert" (which I disagree with), the fact remains that self-published sources should be avoided. You've made it abundantly clear there are plenty of far higher quality sources available. A question I must ask - why are you so insistent on using a low quality, controversial source? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone" at the FTC didn't have their ideas used as references in peer review material, Taylor was so this argument falls flat on it face with two broken kneecaps right out of the gate. What peer review material has Clements been used in?--67.16.89.44 (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Clements has been cited in numerous (non-self published) books on NWM, as well as being a recognized court expert. --Insider201283 (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Contact?

Hi Insider, would you mind contacting me offline, I'd like to talk with you. If you're amenable, please use my personal website's email feature Mike (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I dropepd you a note as requested. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article ACN Inc., you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Imagine that! Insider201283 is an Amway/Quixtar IBO, and guess which organization he gets tagged COI for? ACN! Mike (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Orange Mike - have you reviewed the Talk for that page? I've categorically stated several times I have no connection with ACN. Another editor continually, and falsely, is accusing me of being a paid editor. What more can I do than categorically deny it? It's curious how when it comes to certain articles, one POV so often gets COI accusations, but nobody ever seems to ask if the other POV has COI interests. This is particularly odd given that in the direct selling/MLM world, afaik only anti-mlm folk have ever been found to be secretly being paid for websites and wiki edits. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Mike - and I'm not even a business building IBO! This is like someone who is a shopping member of sam's club being accused of a COI for requesting sourced, verifiable edits by a clearly POV editor on the Costoco article. :/ --Insider201283 (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)