Talk:Amway North America/Archive 1

message: Alticor has been removing negative information yet again. See changes by 167.23.0.90 on 09:48, 26 July 2005 in the history. The IP 167.23.0.90 traces to Alticor.
*ESKog called Alticor's recent vandalism anon blanking :-)  it was an alticor ip removing our links164.116.253.65 23:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, I am not making any assumptions. All I have stated is that it is an Alticor IP, plain and simple. Let the user come to their own conclusions. You've made more assumptions in the above paragraph than I ever did regarding this IP address. Second, what the user at this IP has done is NOT in the "spirit of Wikipedia" as it is vandalism, pure and simple. This IP has deleted the same lines of text, repeatedly, without discussing it on the talk page, offering a different point of view, or even a simple explanation in the edit summary. Once again, that is called vandalism, and certainly doesn't fall into the category of "doing nothing wrong." In fact, it is pretty similar to the company's general modus operandi of constantly trying to suppress negative information about itself. I do agree with you on the last sentence of "Information control," but the rest of the information is completely valid. (DonIncognito 16:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don, again, your tone is extremely harsh.  And you did indeed make an assumption, or rather an implication when you said "That list alone sure tells you something, doesn't it?".  As this user made comment of, it really doesn't tell us anything concrete, except the deletions happened by the mentioned IP, which may or may not have even been the same person.  Additionally, this user made no assumptions at all, they merely said that you really can't make any assumptions.  Let's try to keep this page as civil as possible.Stones12 22:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The tone is such because I get very annoyed at attempts to justify and pass off blatant vandalism as an exercise in NPOV. In fact, my other comments on this talk page pertain to the same subject matter. Regarding my comment that you quoted above, that was more of a jab at Amway/Alticor's reputation for less-than-honest dealings rather than an assumption about 167.23.0.90. Perhaps I should have clarified that. Anyhow, I'm all for civility and none of my postings can be deemed as anything but civil; however, when I see repeated, large-scale deletions of information referred to as "the spirit of Wikipedia" and "doing nothing wrong" I'm not going to mince words. I call 'em as I see 'em. --DonIncognito 04:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alticor's Vandalism

message: *I vote keep on this one.  Another reputable news source to draw from.  Fits and supports the controversy section of the article.  Gallwapa 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.mlive.com/business/grpress/index.ssf?/base/business-3/113490451560070.xml&coll=6 Grand Rapids Press article about Quixtar] 

message: Quixtar was not founded by Alticor. In September of 1999 when Quixtar launched there was no Alticor. The Mule 23:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Myths

message: ʛwas wondering, how come all the neutral news websites put up were deleted?  it's just business news, fair in just sharing other reports on the company's business developments; ie new products or new partnerships, etc.
my guess is, and correct me if i'm wrong, there are those who support Quixtar who might be deleting critics websites, and those who hate Quixtar are deleting neutral news sites.
such as:
*http://www.esource-news.com/index.php?p=3
*http://www.artistry.com
*http://www.naocosmetics.com
*http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/dvimf16.htm
Sb7 04:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Artistry and NAO are/were linked in the article itself, but do not necessarily need to be reflected in the informational links becuase, frankly, artistry and NAO do not have any relevance to Quixtar itself.  They're exclusive to Quixtar...and that link has been mentioned.  The "esource-news" site - thats the first time I've seen it, and it looks like a poorly written press release, one of the many Quixtar and the IBOAI puts out to "Prnewswire" and the other 'free' 'press release' sites that are of questionable content status.  I'm leary of a billion dollar corporation putting out 'press releases' that say basically nothing but for some reason link to a number of Quixtar pages...my guess is it is the web intitive in disguise to drive up the pages' ranks.  At any rate, I do not think that link should be included.  The FTC speech may have relevance, so i've left it so far.  Please leave the Quixtar blog link, it has been discussed (see previous discussion) and approved.Gallwapa 05:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: **that's cool.  you seem to have a valid point in saying that Artistry and NAO "do not have "relevance" to Quixtar itself", but please help me out, what do you mean exactly by that?  i'm sure you have more to say than just "no relevance to Quixtar itself", b/c someone might interpret that logic as saying "in such a case, WWDB or BWW won't have any relevance to Quixtar itself since they work exclusively with Quixtar only to supply the goods and services".  do you see my confusion?  i will add it back until another voting has been made.  innocent until proven guilty, yes?  would it be fair to say the site link is innocent until proven to not belong here?  thanks!  ^.^Sb7 22:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: **as for the voting, how many votes does it justify to remove or add a site?  a majority?  say, 4 to 3?  3 to 2?  or a 2/3 voting?  it's seems we're working on very shaky and uncertain ground here.  this is the reason i thought we can remove "one man's perception of Quixtar" link.  if you can help me out in clearifying this as well, that would be great, thanks!  ^.^Sb7 22:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: ***We don't usually operate on simple votes here - we prefer to work towards consensus, which is admittedly hard to define. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral News Websites 

message: :*Okay, this is by NO MEANS final, but I took the liberty to put a bit of rewriting into the article.  what do you folks think?  Note: the final version will NOT include the NOWIKI tags, they were put in to prevent new sectioning on this article...if you know a better way to do this please let me know! Gallwapa 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *NO ONE? - Its been a week and there hasn't been a single comment.  Anyone have any thoughts on these revisions? Yes or no, ya or nay? Gallwapa 20:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article rewrite - draft 1 - please comment