| Revision as of 03:08, 18 November 2010 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,597 editsm Signing comment by Leef5 - "→Opinion request on MLM article consistency: new section"← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:46, 18 November 2010 edit undoArgyriou (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,511 edits →Opinion request on MLM article consistency: reply to Leef5Next edit → | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
| I liked your approach on the List of multilevel marketing companies article. In particular, some edits you made on the AdvoCare article I created (of which I used the Herbalife article as a model). | I liked your approach on the List of multilevel marketing companies article. In particular, some edits you made on the AdvoCare article I created (of which I used the Herbalife article as a model). | ||
| One of the issues I've seen as I have reviewed many of the articles on the MLM list, is how some are very promotional in setup and others have some issues with ] given by editors that seem to be interested in showing off criticism instead of the article being about the facts of the company. May I get your opinion on the ] article, comparing that with articles like ] or ], ], etc. (or any others you wish from the Life of multilevel marketing companies article)? When I ran across the Usana article, I was taken aback by the emphasis on the 2007 criticism from Barry Minkow. Would appreciate your insight. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | One of the issues I've seen as I have reviewed many of the articles on the MLM list, is how some are very promotional in setup and others have some issues with ] given by editors that seem to be interested in showing off criticism instead of the article being about the facts of the company. May I get your opinion on the ] article, comparing that with articles like ] or ], ], etc. (or any others you wish from the Life of multilevel marketing companies article)? When I ran across the Usana article, I was taken aback by the emphasis on the 2007 criticism from Barry Minkow. Would appreciate your insight. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| :Looking at the article, I think the "products" section should be expanded, to talk a little more about what they actually sell. I don't think there's undue weight being placed on the criticisms and legal issues. <span style="font-family:serif;font-size:120%">''']''' ]</span> 17:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:46, 18 November 2010
| Leave a message |
| Comments left on this page will be replied to on this page, unless you specifically request otherwise. |
| If I've left a message on your talk page, I'll be watching it, so you can reply there if you'd like. |
- Archive 1 - Alameda Measure A archive
- Archive 2 - Engineering-related talk archive
- Archive 3 - Discussions about nationalist revisionism
- Archive 4 - The Barrington/YouTube/Sir Nicholas mess
- Archive 5 - General political topics talk archive
- Archive 6 - IRA AfDs archive
- Archive 7 - Cluebat archive, in which various users (including me) are administered clue. It sticks, sometimes.
- Archive 8 - everything else up through April 2008
- Archive 9 - Random discussions which don't categorize elsewhere
- Archive 10 - Discussions about University Students' Cooperative Association houses
Greek civil war
Removing cited material, arguing that this is "weasel word" is totally unacceptable. I added a UN report, I added scholars from both sides and you revert that, arguing what?! That it is weasel word!! Come on now! This is a totally unacceptable excuse! Both sided deserve mentioning in the article! And I was searching all day in Google Book to find all these sources, which you reverted with one click! I hope you know that such reverting is on the verge of vandalism.
Argyriou I lost relatives in the Civil War by the communists, but I'll not jeopardize Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic NPOV for this reason. I hope this is the case for you as well!--Yannismarou (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
AfD
I've nominated Obama Republican and McCain Democrat for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Have fun. I don't care, and probably won't show up to the AfD discussion. Argyriou (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:911tm
Template:911tm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. - Noticed you in one of the template's previous afd's.Sloane (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Homeowners Association Central link on Homeowners Association Website Page
Hello, you don't know me, but I wanted to take a moment of your time to get your opinion on a dispute I'm having with a wikipedia editor. if you visit the page on "Homeowners Association", and look at the discussion, the dissent is about a link I placed on the page to the website "Homeowners Association Websites Central." A certain editor "Wangi" not only believes that I have no right to place the link in the external links section, but further has accused me of starting bogus accounts as new users simply to add this link. I figure if I get some well known wikipedians to look at the situation, the link, and add their opinion to the debate, then at least I will know that the crazy accusations of user fraud will stop. Boy, who would have thought this would be such a hassle. Anyway the url for the link in question is http://www.athomenet.com/homenew/homeowners-association-websites-central.asp , and you can see the long history by looking at the history log on the homeowners association page.... Please, whatever your opinion may be, place it in the discussion area page in the topic of external links of Homeowners association central, and if you think the content is helpful, please add or undo wangi's deletion of the page. I will respect whatever your opinion is. Thank you: Edenrage (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Victorian Architecture
Hi Argyriou! An article you have been concerned with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Victorian architecture, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
FC
A vandal named ikonoblast is trying to destroy the FC article. He tried two times (2007 & 2009) to delete it, but his intentions were exposed by other users. See his latest attempt to get the article destroyed here. 122.177.218.88 (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't particularly give a shit. For a while, I was participating in AfD discussions, and this article came up. 3 years later, I don't really care - I've never contributed to the article, I don't really care much about caste in India. Argyriou (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Add a reference to Piling Driver
A new word "piling rig" and its explanation had been added into the page "Pile Driver ". The source of "piling rig" is from http://www.constrequip.com/hydraulic%20piling%20rigs. It is suggested adding the source link into the page since we need to show some kind of respect to the original.Thanks for you comments in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles.luo (talk • contribs) 01:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
revision of soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering
Hi, I just wanted to touch base because I know you have done a lot of work on the geotechnical engineering page in the past. I am working on a rewrite of the soil mechanics article and then hope to better coordinate it with the geotechnical engineering page, including minimization of some redundant information. I made some changes to the history section of geotechnical engineering already. I am in the process of moving over a completely rewritten soil mechanics page right now. For the time being, a link to the soil mechanics rewrite before migrating can be seen on my user page. Let me know if you have serious concerns or suggestions. Blkutter (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'll look at it in a little bit. Thanks for stopping by, even though I haven't been active in years. Argyriou (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Opinion request on MLM article consistency
I liked your approach on the List of multilevel marketing companies article. In particular, some edits you made on the AdvoCare article I created (of which I used the Herbalife article as a model). One of the issues I've seen as I have reviewed many of the articles on the MLM list, is how some are very promotional in setup and others have some issues with WP:Undue weight given by editors that seem to be interested in showing off criticism instead of the article being about the facts of the company. May I get your opinion on the USANA Health Sciences article, comparing that with articles like Herbalife or ACN Inc., Shaklee, etc. (or any others you wish from the Life of multilevel marketing companies article)? When I ran across the Usana article, I was taken aback by the emphasis on the 2007 criticism from Barry Minkow. Would appreciate your insight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leef5 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at the article, I think the "products" section should be expanded, to talk a little more about what they actually sell. I don't think there's undue weight being placed on the criticisms and legal issues. Argyriou (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)