Talk:Network TwentyOne

message: Delete a swathe of well-sourced material, living only a section we're in agreement is badly sourced, and then claim the article should be deleted since it has no independent sourcing! Funny stuff! hahahaha. Now can you please stop with the disruptive editing? It's really getting tiresome. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Funny Stuff

message: This section needs rewriting and better sourcing, and is perhaps not particularly important to the article, lacking any 3rd party notability --Insider201283 (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is partically sourced to a book "System for Success". Not a third party source though. That would be ok but without anything else probably not notable --Insider201283 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I didn't write any of that section, however it is referenced to the Network 21 publication "system for success"--Insider201283 (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: N21 Business System

message: This is an official site and blog of Network 21 and would seem to qualify as appropriate under Wikipedia:External_links#Official_links --Insider201283 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary sources like that may be used as a source, but the article should be based on them. I don't see any secondary sources in the current version. That calls the company's notability into question. If we can't find any then we should AfD the article.   Will Beback  talk   02:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Will, the blog wasn't used as a source, it was merely under External Links. FG222 has several times added a blogspot personal blog to the site and is of the opinion if it's not allowed neither should the official blog.--Insider201283 (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

text: No, the n21guy site was NOT used as a source. This has already been explained to you, it was simply WP:CONV. The source is the magazine as cited. World Vison is not a "related business". The Christian Businessman magazine is not a "related business". Of course it's interesting to note the many words you wrote above claiming that NOC and the Fernando Foundation should not be in the article because they're not related ... and now your claiming they shouldn't be used as sources in the article because they are related! Make up your mind. :-/ And yet you don't seem to have a problem with the "controversy" section consisting of info sourced from blogs of a "related" company and not mentioned anywhere by any "independent" sources. If sources like World Vision and The Christian Businessman magazine and Daily Sun newspaper did not exist then I'd agree, the subject of the article is perhaps not notable enough for an article.--Insider201283 (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally (or perhaps not) n21guy.com is an allowable source under WP:SPS, the blogspot blog is clearly not - indeed so clearly not it was removed by a wikipedia autobot. In any case, no attempt has been made to use n21guy.com as a source for the article. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you claiming that one of the world's largest charitable organisations is not a reliable source with regard to it's donors? Really? Or are you claiming "notability" rests entirely on the World Vision source, even though the subject of the article is mentioned in at least two mainstream media sources and several independently published books?   --Insider201283 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: n21.guy.com

message: Section requires better sourcing for inclusion.
=== Business Methodology ===
Network 21 provides training programs to help IBOs grow their Amway/Quixtar businesses. The system consists of books and CDs, and organizing seminars where successful business persons, specialists and motivational speakers speak, both from within and from outside Network 21. Network 21 teaches a method of business building which it calls the "TEAM21 strategy"..
===The Network 21 Business System===
The basic N21 business building system is the following Network 21 System for Success-
:1. Define your goal or dream
:2. Learn about and become Core (see below)
:3. Make a list of potential business partners and customers
:4. Learn how to do a professional business invitation, and invite them to see the business presentation
:5. Show the business presentation
:6. Followup with interested business prospects and customers
:7. Evaluate your results with your mentor/coach
:8. Repeat
===Core===
"Core" is provided as a series of activities that IBOs should engage in to order to maximize their potential to build a successful, profitable Amway business. N21 recommends doing the Core activities every month consistently over a period of 1-2years to achieve Silver Producer level in Amway.
:1. Show the Business Plan to a minimum of 8 people per month, preferably at least 15
:2. Use and learn about the products and generate a minimum level of personal volume each month (including both personal consumption and retail clients)
:3. Have a minimum of 10 personal clients
:4. Listen to an educational/motivational CD daily
:5. Read a personal development book daily (min 15mins)
:6. Participate in the N21 system of seminars
:7. Work as part of a team
:8. good income
===Vital Signs===
Network 21 uses a method known as "Vital signs" to help measure the ongoing "health" of a business. Data is collated from IBO businesses and those statistics that reflect growing profitable businesses are supplied to IBOs as "goals". Statistics indicate that matching that data tends to result in a business of similar size and profitability. The statistics collected include how much personal volume an IBO is generating (through personal use and retail customer sales), how many retail customers the IBO has, how many IBOs in a group are showing at least 15 business presentations a month, and how many IBOs a group are participating in ongoing education programs. The actual "Vital Signs" statistics vary from market to market.--Insider201283 (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: methodology

message: Network 21 uses a method known as "Vital signs" to help measure the ongoing "health" of a business. Data is collated from IBO businesses and those statistics that reflect growing profitable businesses are supplied to IBOs as "goals". Statistics indicate that matching that data tends to result in a business of similar size and profitability. The statistics collected include how much personal volume an IBO is generating (through personal use and retail customer sales), how many retail customers the IBO has, how many IBOs in a group are showing at least 15 business presentations a month, and how many IBOs a group are participating in ongoing education programs. The actual "Vital Signs" statistics vary from market to market.--Insider201283 (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vital Signs

message: I have locked this article from editing for one week. Please iron out these disputes here in the meantime; if the issues are resolved, please request unprotection at WP:RFPP. There is some very good advice near the top of this page around the third opinion request, especially the section #What happens next?. Please follow those or other steps in dispute resolution. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Is this an American term? It's used in the lede twice but it's not blue-linked to anywhere that explains the term. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually originally had the term italicised however another editor complained about the "weird italicising" and said it was obvious in meaning. It pretty much means what it means, however it's a term used throughout the direct sales/MLM industry. Amway also uses the term "Amway Business Owner" and "Amway Independent Business Owner" and "distributor" in other markets. The term used to be "distributor" everywhere, but with the internet and direct ordering and fulfillment very little "distribution" is done by IBOs these days. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent Business Owner 

message: There currently appears to be only the one secondary source with regard N21, Amway and the UK government, The Muskegon Chronicle. The problem is that this secondary source is contradicted by the primary source and other sources. For example, the Muskegon chronicle calls N21 a "high level Amway distributor". Other sources state it is not, including the judgement from the case, which states -
Britt and Network 21 are independent entities which are not owned by Amway or by any of its shareholders or officers. Amway does not share in any of the risks or rewards of Britt and Network 21 (BERR vs Amway UK Para 5) 
The Muskegon Chronicle states the case is about "tools", the judgment from the case explictly states it is not about tools (Business Support Materials, or BSM) -
Nor has this case been (as it might have been) about the volume of BSM produced by Amway or by the organisations (like Britt and Network 21) (BERR vs Amway UK para 50)
WP:V states Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page. The claims made in the article is clearly poorly sourced and clearly damaging. Under Wikipedia policy the material should be removed entirely. However, given their was a case I'm hesitant to do so and unsure how to handle it. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Posted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Secondary_source_contradicted_by_primary_source --Insider201283 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed this whole discussion under WP:DUE. We have one article from a small town newspaper reporting on allegations from the other side of the planet. It falls under  Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views and If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.. Unless better sources can be found it should be removed, as per WP:V - Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

text: In fact, in case it helps, the court case has been described in multiple reliable sources. I'll point out first that the piece attributed to the Muskegon Chronicle piece has been misattributed; it was actually written by Rob Kirkbride of The Grand Rapids Press, distributed by Newhouse News Service and was also published in The Star-Ledger and (it appears) in the Muskegon Chronicle.  There are also multiple mentions of the case, Norris' judgment, the government's appeal of the judgment in The Times, Press Association and Inter Press Service articles. Not all the articles explicitly mention Network 21, but they all mention the overall case.  For what's its worth an associated Grand Rapids Press summary calls Network21 a "mega-distributor", and later articles say that the cases were dismissed. The articles are available via Lexis-Nexis and Factiva.  If editors send me an email, I can send copies.--Slp1 (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Part of the issue is I think most of those talk about the case against Amway being dismissed, but don't mention Network 21. In either case useful for both articles. I'll PM you. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These were petitions, see the court documents plus discussion in RS/N. Primary sources should only be used in support (or otherwise) of secondary sources or for factual information, to introduce new claims requiring interpretation. They should certainly not be used to put entirely novel information in the lead. It was Amway that introduced a revised business model, and even then the judgement and appeal judgement state that the revisions were not necessary to the petitions being dismissed. The basis of BERRS appeal was that the judge erred in considering the changes when dismissing the petition. The appeal judges said it didn't matter since they weren't necessary to the dismissal. We have no idea what occurred regarding the N21 dismissal. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Case 

message: I removed these tags added by a new contributor as these issues were hashed to death in the recent AfD discussion --Insider201283 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement tag and primary sources tag 

message: * Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-05-02/Network_TwentyOne
--Insider201283 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can involved editors please stop editing this article over issues awaiting mediation. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submitted to Dispute Resolution 

message: If I were to walk into companies court, how exactly could I get my hands on The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v AMWAY (UK) LIMITED, Petition Nos 2651,2652,2653 of 2007 (Chancery Division, Companies Court May 14, 2008) and The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Network TwentyOne Support Systems Ltd, Petition No 2653 of 2007 (Chancery Division, Companies Court April 3, 2009). No convience links to wikis owned by editors here, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Email them and ask them for a copy, that's what I did. Are you seriously claiming the PDFs on AmwayWiki are forged? Forging of government documents is a serious offence --Insider201283 (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Or are you claiming that official court documents are an unreliable source for court outcomes? --Insider201283 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't need to claim things are forged, I just need to say they are not reliably sourced. Who do I email, exactly, and what do I ask them, exactly? Actually, why not just send me a copy of what you emailed them so I can write exactly the same thing. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have some 40000 emails stored in my accounts spread across a number of computers, many are archived. You have copies of what I received, you refuse to accept them, and have effectively accused me of forging government documents. I am not going to spend my time digging up the original emails to satisfy you. To paraphrase yourself - I bill $1,000 US an hour for wikipedia assignments - payable in advance, minimum 30 hour contracts. Would you like my wire instructions, or are you going to do it yourself? --Insider201283 (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed your unreliable "convience" links as you are unable, or unwilling, to provide reliable sources for those links. Please do not link to wikis as sources, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A convenience link is NOT a source. I have provided you with the sources. I have provided you with copies of the originals. I have told you where you can get the copies yourself. Your edits are little more than POV vandalism. Please do not edit the article while we take this to mediation --Insider201283 (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You first. Also, read WP:NOTVAND. Hipocrite (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not consider the repeated poorly sourced inclusion of allegations against a company while removing the well sourced statement that the allegations were dismissed to be a "good faith edit". As it stand the article is pretty much as it was before the current dispute erupted. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Reverts of the type I've been doing are not only allowed but required under wikipedia policy. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are wrong. Once you recieve your 3rr block, perhaps you'll realize that you can't just keep reverting to your preferred version. Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part of WP:V Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page are you struggling to understand? --Insider201283 (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  What damaging material did you remove in #1 revert, #2 revert, #3 revert, #4 revert, #5 revert, and #6 revert? Why do you think that WP:V is an exemption to WP:3rr, exactly? You're wrong, and you're about to get an enforced break from this article to prove it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you seriously believe that deleting the fact a case was dismissed while leaving in the allegations is not "damaging" to an organization? Really? IMO the allegations themselves should be removed, however in the interest of achieving consensus I'm willing to go with that as long as the fact they were dismissed is also included. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That "fact" cannot be verified except via your personal wiki. Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  (1) The documents are not "on" the Wiki per se, merely hosted there. (2) They can be verified with UK Companies Court. Again - are you accusing me of serious fraud? --Insider201283 (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The documents cannot be verified with UK Companies Court. Hipocrite (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rubbish. You are accusing me of lying and, apparently, serious fraud. I do not appreciate it. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm not. I'm stating the documents cannot be verified with the UK Companies Court. IF you're saying otherwise, your experience with UK Companies Court is obviously different than mine - probably because you know the right contact person in the UK Companies Court. Perhaps you could tell me who to email at the UK Companies Court to get a copy of the sealed decision. Hipocrite (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It took me less than 5 minutes to hunt around with google and find that the entire judgement and appeal judgement of the Amway case is now publicly available online. (When the article is unlocked that should of course be linked to.) The N21 dismissal I couldn't find online - probably because the case never even went to hearings (yeah, it's that notable) - but if you think I'm going to go out of my way to further help someone who is publicly and falsely accusing me of serious crimes, you can go @£%& yourself. I provided you with a copy of the document it says where it's from, that's as far as my WP responsibilities go. At least your consistent - falsely accusing people and organizations of illegal behaviour appears to be your modus operandi here. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please provide a link to a reliable source hosting the document, thanks, and do try to remain civil. Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're accusing me of forging goverment documents and telling ME to be civil? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Oh yes you are. You are rejecting this document as a real document. I state it came from the UK government and is real. You are rejecting it. The clear implication is you believe it to be a forgery. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not rejecting or implying anything. Your document is sourced to amwaywiki.com, not a reliable source. If I were able to contact someone who could explain how to get the document, then I might be able to determine how to cite it as a reliable document. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop lying. THE SOURCE IS NOT AMWAYWIKI. The source is a UK government document. I have a copy of that document, provided by the UK government. I uploaded it to AmwayWiki for the convenience of others. I could have uploaded to google documents, or I could have told you to come to my place to have a look at it. THE SOURCE IS NOT AMWAYWIKI and the fact you keep claiming it is - is nothing more than evidence of your extreme dishonesty. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  How does one obtain the document you have without violating WP:OR? Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What has WP:OR got to do with it? Do you think going to a library to get a book violates WP:OR? --Insider201283 (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:OR - "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" - key words - "reliably published." Neither amwaywiki nor wikimedia commons are reliable publishers for UK Court decisions. Hipocrite (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I entirely agree. We're not talking about a document published by amwaywiki or wikimedia commons. We're talking about a document published by the UK government. Are you claiming the UK goverment is not a reliable publisher? --Insider201283 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Now that's a reasonable question. Wherever the UK publishes court decisions. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't make things up out of whole cloth because you are certain they must be true. That's highly problematic behavior. Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I seriously have no idea what that response refers to? --Insider201283 (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I asked where the thing was published. You said, in effect, wherever it would normally be published. Please don't make things up. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don' understand what you are talking about. What is "made up"? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't know for certain where the document was published, correct? Hipocrite (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside of what I've already stated ie - the court publishes them and keep copies, I have no idea where it is otherwise published. I've checked the National Archives (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk) and it certainly implies it will have copies, but it's difficult to ascertain in which catalogue. The courts website says if it's not on BAILII then contact the court. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documents 

message: Stop deleting the fact the case was dismissed. We have an opinion given on RS/N by an expert in UK law that the source used is reliable and says what it is used to support, however since you believe I forged it, it needs to get additional verification, which was noted in the article --Insider201283 (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim I'm adding a non-existence source - what non-existence source are you talking about? --Insider201283 (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be simply hilarious if it was so sad and destructive. You're continuously delete the fact the UK court case was dismissed, based on the RS/N commentary that interpretation of primary sources shouldn't be done - despite the fact no such interpretation is occurring - and then go and interpret the other court document and include the information! Have you no integrity at all? --Insider201283 (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) The business changes were Amway changes, not Network 21 (2) BERR claimed that Justice Norris dismissed the case because of the changes Amway made, and appealed based on their assertion he did not have the right to do this. The appeal court judges affirmed that the case would have been dismissed even without the changes Amway made. I have already added the appeal judgment so you can confirm this yourself. So claiming "the case was dismissed after Amway made changes" is about as relevant as saying "the case was dismissed after the sun came up". By putting it in the article you're implying it was dismissed because of the changes, when the appeal court judges explictly said it was not. In addition of course, this article is about Network 21, not Amway. The Network 21 case did not even go to hearings, and while N21 suspended operations during the Amway case, they are now fully operating again. For the reason that all this explanation is needed I have shortened the lead so that it does not mislead. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: UK Case

message: Financeguy222's edits are nonsensical. This is the text he is insisting upon -
:In 1997, Network 21's training methods were depicted in a polish film Welcome to Life [26]. The film depicted MLM "pep rallies" and accused the organisation of illegal practices and operating meetings similar to the Communist Party. The film was a best-seller on the local video black market.[27] It was banned while the suit proceeded.[28]
What suit? No suit is mentioned in the text. Financeguy222 is deleting all the other relevant information and making the section complete rubbish --Insider201283 (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFLMAO!!!!!! Your revert or remove any edit not consistent with your POV pushing. What's the point of editing the article? --Insider201283 (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: FG222 - you have rejected the UK court case judgement as a source on what the actual court case is about, but are wanting to use a judges opinion in that case about third parties not involved in the case as a source? Good one. I'll try to resurrect the mediation request. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: FG222 - Please review this discussion about the use of court documents in the manner in which you are (mis)using them --Insider201283 (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, primary sources should be used with care and only for factual matters. This is a judges opinion about parties not involved in the case and should not be used (not least because it's wrong on two counts (a) there's no "captive audience" and (b) the sales structure of BSM companies are not remotely "pyramid" shaped). If you disagree then I suggest you take the matter to WP:OR/Noticeboard or WP:RS/Noticeboard for additional opinions --Icerat (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I suggest you point out the non RS sources I have used. You failed to do so when asked several times by other editors on your bogus COI attack. I have already pointed you to a discussion on the use of court documents in this manner. You yourself several times rejected this very same source when it was referring about itself, yet you feel it's a valid source referring to something else??--Icerat (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually in this instance the judgement is being used as a secondary source, since it's talking about something other than the case. I'm not sure how court judgements are accepted on WP in that instance, my first instinct is yes, my second is no, since there's, I assume, no fact checking for that. In any case while we sort that out I'll fix the other stuff re the court case, since you now agree it's usable as a primary source. --Icerat (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Case 2 

message: I have tagged this article for re-write. Here is why.
:Firstly, pyramids are illegal in most countries, and therefore Network21 and/or Amway cannot (and do not) operate a pyramid.
:Secondly, there is a very sophisticated tiered compensation plan associated with Amway (which is irrelevant) and Network 21 BSM (which is relevant). Unless you are privileged to have access to the specifics on how bonuses for BSM are calculated, and are permitted by the company to disclose this, I suggest you remove statements that presuppose who makes the money, and how the money is made.
:Thirdly, almost every second or third sentence presents a controversial opinion. Even the sources appear to be the opinions of the uninformed. There is a section dedicated to Controversy. Use it.
:Fourthly, there has been no mention of how many members or businesses Network 21 supports, or how many employees Network 21 has, or what its yearly turnover is, which I would consider to be critical pieces of information.
:Fifthly, the founders of Network 21 regularly deliver seminars that provide company updates. These seminars are usually recorded by Network 21 and distributed through the network via audio CD. If you are interested in maintaining or contributing to this page and want some perspective, see if you can find a Network 21 IBO and see if you can borrow some of his audio CDs, particularly CDs by Jim Dornan. The one I would recommend is "UoS 101 and UoS 102".
:I would also recommend ibofacts.com as a credible source, as the people who maintain this site are neither Amway employees, nor Network 21 employees.
121.44.16.61 (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged for re-write 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Network TwentyOne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220170943/http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/appeals.nsf/stable/noc21_history to http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/appeals.nsf/stable/noc21_history
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224155614/http://www.freewheelchairmission.org/site/c.fgLFIXOJKtF/b.4923775/apps/s/content.asp?ct=6815749 to http://www.freewheelchairmission.org/site/c.fgLFIXOJKtF/b.4923775/apps/s/content.asp?ct=6815749
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224155622/http://www.freewheelchairmission.org/site/c.fgLFIXOJKtF/b.4923775/apps/s/content.asp?ct=7522119 to http://www.freewheelchairmission.org/site/c.fgLFIXOJKtF/b.4923775/apps/s/content.asp?ct=7522119
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722134910/http://www.plejada.pl/2%2C24876%2Cnews%2C1%2C1%2Cwitajcie-w-zyciu-film-o-amwayu-wycofany-z-wff%2Cartykul.html to http://www.plejada.pl/2,24876,news,1,1,witajcie-w-zyciu-film-o-amwayu-wycofany-z-wff,artykul.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903233612/http://www.amway.pl/news?news_id=11226&back_uri=%2F to http://www.amway.pl/news?news_id=11226&back_uri=%2F
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified