Talk:Amway Australia/Archives/2012

Notes on deletion and merge tags

Speedy deletion tag and merge tag were removed after reviewing admin User: Stephen and User: DGG approved page – See view history

• 5th November – User: Stephen “declined speedy, notability asserted”
• 21st January – User: DGG “As reviewing admin, I think this at somewhat informative, and not entirely promotional, so speedy deletion declined”

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.162.66 (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section

WP:NPOV guidelines recommend avoiding sections like "controversy" which are inherently POV. --Insider201283 (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As per above, NPOV (specifically WP:STRUCTURE) says such sections should be avoided. Neither of the two issues raised are particularly "controversial" and labelling them as such is imposing a POV on the information. As [[User:Financeguy222|Financeguy222] is apparently intransigent on this and unwilling to discuss it on talk, I have raised the issue on the NPOV Noticeboard[1] --Icerat (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a template (proposed by Icerat) for corporations, which looks useful for this discussion.[2]Octopet (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oz parliament

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)

Wholesale deletion by FinanceGuy222

FG222 - please outline what your problems with sources are. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

An again you do wholesale deletes without even raising it in talk. Which sources are you claiming are not RS? --Insider201283 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Listed for Wikipedia:Third_opinion --Insider201283 (talk) 19:45, 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)

What do you do when they refuse to discuss the issue in talk? This is a regular problem with this user. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:03, 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)

My reply to you came after you had done the wholesale deletions. Your claim that my edits are "unverifiable, non RS sources" etc is patently absurd. --Insider201283 (talk) 04:21, 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)

Excuse me? Apart from perhaps the two books, both independently written by academics, I haven't used a single one of these sources before. What's more, you're even deleting stuff from sources you are using! How can you possibly justify the NSW parliament "question" without the "answer"? Just to be clear, here are the sources I used you are considering not to be WP:RS -

• Xardel, Dominique (1993). The Direct Selling Revolution. Understanding the Growth of the Amway Corporation. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 1–4. ISBN 978-0631192299.
• Cross, Wilbur (1999). Amway: The true story of the company that transformed the lives of millions. Berkley Books. pp. 137–140. ISBN 0-425-17040-3.
• "Succession Planning - Bill Duncan". EMA. Archived from the original on October 9, 2007.ref
• Amway Asia Pacific Reports Fourth Quarter and Fiscal 1999 Results
• Sue Bushell (November 15,2000). "We did IT Amway". CIO Australia (IDG).
• "Landmark decision awards luxury tax break". The Australian Financial Review. October 13, 2004.
• Simon Canning. "Social networking sites lure direct sellers". The Australian.
• Adam Gilchrist and Libby Trickett - Amway Ambassadors. Amway Australia website
• "Trickett dives into new role". Kiwana Courier (Community Newspaper Group). April 20,2010.
• 40 years young. Amway corporate blog

Every single one is well and truly WP:RS. --Insider201283 (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I came here after seeing the 3RR report. I am not the least bit convinced by Financeguy222's edit warring or arguments on this talk page. I would recommend to Financeguy222 that he come up with rebuttals to the points raised by Insider201283, otherwise his page blanking and edit warring begin to look like obstructionism and harassment. Financeguy222, your characterization of Insider201283's edits are serious. Do you have any evidence for your claims? Your rationale for edit warring and reversion appears to be "because I can" and "I don't like it". That's not going to hold up. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. I *think* I've found one of FG222's "problems" in that one of the sources I used was an Amway Asia Pacific annual report. A copy of the PDF was linked to and it was hosted in the amwaywiki archives. The source, the annual report, is RS, but from previous experience FG222 considers the fact the URL to it included the amwaywiki domain as "promotional" or some such, even though the site itself (which is not RS) is not linked to. I've managed to dig through archive.org and find a copy of the annual report PDF hosted there, so hopefully that solves one problem, though that's no excuse for his wholesale deletions and attacks on me. I suspect, again from previous experience, that he also rejects the use of two corporate websites as sources, even for information on themselves, even though this is clearly allowed under WP:SPS/WP:RS and one is backed by a third party source and the other (40 years) backed by simple math. I've no idea what his problems are with the other sources, especially given one of them he added himself. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Amway Australia ... & New Zealand?

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)

I have no objections Octopet (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)