Leef5

Talk page Email Articles Logs Sandbox Userspace

Sandbox

I made some quick suggestions to the USANA section you're working on in your Sandbox. I'll try to take a closer look later because there are a few things I need to double check on but don't have the time.Jean314 (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I just searched through the talk history and didn't see any discussion about that comparative guide. Any idea? I see there are 2 dead links to archives, but there is no archives in there. Hopefully nothing was lost? Leef5 (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with searching Archives in Wikipedia but it would be archived since the discussion happened two years ago if I remember correctly.Jean314 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I found the "missing" archives. When the article was renamed from the colloquial "Usana" to USANA Health Sciences, it broke the archived talk pages. I have renamed those archive pages so they now work from the current talk page. I will spend some time this week to review prior commentaries. Thanks for the head's up. Leef5 (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Good job figuring out the archive problem! It's nice to know that it's up an running should anyone want to review old discussions and topics. I've been reading your current discussion with Rhode Island Red about the changes you'd like to see on the board. At the moment I think Red is making some fair points but I'm searching through USANA articles for more information about their NSF certification anyway. I haven't found anything substantial yet and my on-line search is hampered by Distributor web-sites but if I find anything good I'll post it ASAP. Jean314 (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Declared Bias

I think something you're overlooking is that I have not declared any intent to harm USANA or any distrust of the company itself. I have merely stated that I want the article to present valid information. Your quote from my user page completely omitted the section where I state

"That is not say that I believe USANA is a bad company..."

When editing the articles I rely heavily on news articles in order to source content. I do this because avoid the "sensational descriptions" which can be found in press-releases or on company web-sites. If news surrounding USANA has been primarily negative than this is not my concern. I am not attempting to direct public opinion but relay important, accurate information. Of the two of us only you have stated a desired outcome when it concerns how the company is portrayed in the Wiki Article. Either way I'm tired of people coming along and claiming I'm biased for updating the article and I would appreciate a retraction of your comment on the USANA talk page.Jean314 (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For the number of people that have come along claiming you are biased should be noteworthy enough to cause you pause. If you want the Usana article to be accurate, you could start working on a load of missing information, namely all of the clinical studies to see which are peer-reviewed, pour through all of the awards and see which are significant/encyclopedic, dig into the research partnerships and see what is encyclopedic, etc. The article has more than significant coverage of the 2007 Minkow reports and following scrutiny reported by various news agencies. This is what has caused the article to become unbalanced and suffering from WP:UNDUE. Excluding PRs and company websites is not supported by WP policy. Articles should never be sourced 'primarily' from 1st party sources, but they can and should be used for non-controversial facts. For example, using a 1st party source that said "Our products are the best!" would be inappropriate as that's a judgmental statement. When we add the primary sources, we just exclude any "sensational descriptions" and stick with just the facts. I'd like to challenge you to step back, look at the article with a fresh pair of eyes, and start filling in missing information to restore due weight to the article. My only "desired outcome" is to restore this due weight.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 11:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains I have never stated a bias in my editing of the USANA articles as you claimed. What you said was untrue and I would still appreciate a retraction on the talk page.Jean314 (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

When one makes a Wikipedia account and establishes they are here for one article in which to "make others aware of the more controversial issues", and then to say " their method of marketing presents an opportunity for miscommunication amongst their members. I hope to use Wikipedia to correct some of these misunderstandings" is pretty straightforward with your original intentions. I think it was important also that you did state that you didn't think Usana was a bad company (else issues with COI could be raised). If your original intentions to the article have changed, may I recommend updating your userpage to be more in line with what you feel your intentions are with the article?  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

When I first started editing the USANA article it was after it had been blocked for a period of time because people were unable to allow any criticism of the company and because it was pretty much being used as an advertisement. I decided to try my hand at Wikipedia once it became unblocked. Wanting to keep people informed about opinions which were previously edited out is not stating a bias. Believing that MLM creates a greater opportunity for miscommunication is not stating a bias. I did not claim that I was here for solely one article just that it is the main one I focus on. My schedule being what it is I don't have the time to watch a large number of articles and so it is the one I normally check in on. I had originally planned on branching out but my work life simply doesn't allow it and so I instead choose to periodically do my part with a bit of tidying up here and there. None of this is my stating a bias and I would still appreciate you're aknowledging that and making changes to the talk page at the USANA article to reflect it. You can say that I'm biased if you want and you clearly are but I think it's inappropriate that you put words into my mouth and then instead of aknowleding that fact you attempt to interpret what I have written on my intro page in order to further your agenda. Jean314 (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

While appreciated the Barnstar doesn't get to the heart of the matter. You've lied about what I said and I'm asking you to make that right.Jean314 (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks, that is against WP policy to call someone a liar. I understand completely that you do not appreciate your user page statements and contribution history being labelled as non-neutral. All I did was quote the areas where a bias was stated. The intent wasn't to make you feel bad, it was to demonstrate that the only person RIR had agreeing with him on the stock price debate was a single-purpose account (by definition) that had stated a biased reason for starting the account (to add missing controversies). This isn't to say those controversies should not have been added, and I appreciate your explanation of the article status prior to you jumping in. If your intentions were to make the article neutral, balanced, and with due weight as per WP policy, then I would recommend you update your user page to clarify your intentions. I realize your work life is busy, and I can relate to that for sure. However, I may recommend you pick a few other articles across a diverse spectrum that are of an interest to you and contribute when you can. Over time, that will alleviate any concerns about being a single-purpose account and show that you are interested in the WP project as a whole, and not one particular company and related individuals. That isn't to say to stop contributing to the Usana article, but branching out may help give more perspective on WP policies and the spirit of WP editing.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack it's a statement of fact. You commented that I had declared a bias when I have never made such a claim. You then relied on your interpretation of selected quotations from my talk page to justify your false claim instead of correcting your mistake like I had asked. I even attempted to correct your interpretation but you refuse to accept responsability for what I feel was a personal attack against me on the talk page. All I was hoping for was for you to correct your untrue statement to make sure other editors won't disregard my contributions based on a falsehood. You could even have declared that while I've never stated a bias it is your strong opinion that I am and that would have been fine since such is your right. My reasons for starting with this article were no different than your own with the exception of my never feeling the need to weigh the content towards one side. You seem to have a problem with Rhode Island Red but to claim that I've stated something I have not in order to advance your agenda in an argument with this editor is inappropriate.Jean314 (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You know what I take that back. I don't think you lied because I believe you honestly felt at that time what you said was true but that doesn't excuse the fact that you've wrongfully told others I've stated something which I have not based on your own interpretation of selective quotes from my intro page and even after being corrected you persist in believing you have a better idea about what I've said and my intentions than I do.Jean314 (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that. You certainly know your own intentions better than anyone. There is no 'agenda' here. Agenda implies there is some underhanded goal or bias in mind. My goal has been stated openly in regards to the Usana article - restore Due weight. The article needs a lot of work still, and that isn't to dismiss the great deal of work that has gone into the article over the past few years. I don't have anything against RIR personally. Him and I don't see eye to eye on quite a few WP policy interpretations, and I'm not a big fan of the numerous incivilities, but I'd like to think I have a thick skin. It is important to have a wide variety of opinions on articles - too many articles don't have enough participants. Based on our discussions here, I will retract my statement on the Usana talk page in the interests of extending the olive branch. In retrospect, it wasn't necessary to the debate. There still lingers a perception that you may have a bias, so I will still recommend it may be worth updating your user page and making a point to spend a little time on other articles that have a little participation to get a wider view of opinions on implementation of WP policies. These MLM/network marketing/direct sales articles can get really polarized because my observations here have been either people hate them or love them depending on their personal experience. As an analyst, I personally find the sales model interesting from a mathematical perspective, and how different opinions are on that model in different regions throughout the world.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

,,

TheLakester (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:USANA Health Sciences

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:USANA Health Sciences. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

mlm

You removed the mlm category form Findel plc. It was there because of its subsituary Kleeneze. If your removal was correct it should also be removed from its previous parent company European Home Retail. If having the subsiduary is sufficiant for categorisation please re-instate. Agathoclea (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point - Was Kleeneze the only subsidiary that was MLM? And was that subsidiary a major party of its overall business? I think tagging the parent company would only be appropriate if that subsidiary was a major party of its business. For example: Berkshire Hathaway bought The Pampered Chef in 2002, but Pampered Chef isn't the majority of Berhshire's business to tag the parent company. So, for consistency sake, we either need to retag Findel plc if Kleeneze is a significant part of its business, or detag European Home Retail if the previous parent company it wasn't a significant portion as well.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

With Findel it is certainly minor. EHR depends. In terms of profit Kleeneze was the major contributor at the end considering that Farepak was making a loss and ultimately (financially) caused the whole debacle going down (assigning blame is currently still a subject of courtproceedings 5 years later). Turnoverwise possibly Farepak was higher and there where a number of smaller companies in the group. Also prior to being called EHR the company was called Kleeneze plc when they wanted to emphasise the involvement. The origin is a little bit hazy. Prior to that EHR/Kleenze plc either was called Farpak and a new Farpak with its original corebusiness was created or alternatively it was created as a Holding company. Kleeneze Ltd definetely was owned by a company called Farepak prior to that point in time. As far as the categories are concerned - your call, maybe the little background helps in making your mind up. Agathoclea (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it be fair then to say that EHR should be tagged since it was named Kleeneze at one point? And that Findel it is a minor part of the total subsidiary ownership, so not tag that one? (I think coincidentally that's how it happens to be tagged now)  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 14:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Right - that is how it is now, and seems right. Agathoclea (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing the Market America Page

Please refrain from categorizing the Market America page without first running it through the author. Thank you and take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjchipol (talk • contribs) 17:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are a single-purpose account that created the Market America article. Please see WP:OWN. Once you create an article, it is the communities, not the author, nor any particular editor. While I appreciate all your efforts to create the article, you will need to discuss issues with editors on the article's talk page. Thank you.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point in time you have edited my article enough to relieve me of being a COI. Can you make sure that no information is misconstrued on there since upon reading your profile you have a fondness for MLM companies. Further more it is not right for you as an admin to keep posting my social media accounts nor is it right for the random IP address to do so. On top of that to make personal attacks against me is in violation of Wikipedia policies so the information about me being a liar should be stricken completely. It would be greatly appreciated to keep my personal accounts off Wikipedia.Mjchipol (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

COI (conflict of interest) refers to the fact that you have a vested interest in the article being a promotional or negative article. In this case, the anonymous editor that identified you showed that you published this article while employed with the company. It is likely, that you will regarded as a person with a COI to Market America.

Regarding your comment that I have a fondness for MLM companies - that is actually quite inaccurate and there is nowhere on my profile that would state such an inaccuracy. Let me be clear, the word "fascinated" does not mean "fond", nor does it mean the opposite, that I despise MLM.

I am not an admin - your case is being discussed at the appropriate admin areas. I see since your post, the IP editor has come in and stricken your actual social media addresses from the talk page, while still leaving their conclusions. I think this is fair. Calling someone a lair could indeed be considered a personal attack - it would have been better to say that you lied about not having a COI with this article.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 23:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

When will the COI tag be taken down since the article looks to have been overhauled with new content?Mjchipol (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably when enough editors feel the content meets WP:NPOV guidelines, promotional content/wording removed, and significant negative press was fairly covered (and not missing entirely)  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 00:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rollback granted

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red and Juice Plus

I hesitate to respond to your comment on my talk page, knowing what the respond from User:Rhode Island Red will be, but here goes. He has been accusing me, for as long as I have been trying to temper his obvious and long-term POV editing at Juice Plus, of having a COI on this article. I see no reason to respond to his attacks (one admin even did a checkuser on me, due to this user's continued accusations that I was a sock/meat puppet for the then object of his hatred, see below; the result was, of course, a clean bill of health). I have simply told him that I have no COI on this article, but he continues to repeat his accusations. AFAIK he could have a COI (e.g. he may work for a pharceutical company or a college and feel that everything which is not mainstream medicine threatens his position - who knows?) It is however a matter of public record that:

1. Rhode Island Red was blocked from WP for a period of 6 months last year because of serious breaches of WP rules (Wiki-stalking of an ex-Juice Plus Distributor, including revealing her home address and personal details online); I believe that his first edit after the block expired was on the Juice Plus article.
2. admins new to this scene expressed surprise that his activities here had not been punished by a block much sooner.
3. he has had an RFC unrelated to the block issue about his behaviour
4. he has been warned frequently by numerous admins for his attempted ownership of this article
5. on several occasions he has been asked by admins to take a break from editing this article but has ignored their requests

To pre-empt the inevitable response from this user: these are not personal attacks but a statement of the facts - it's all there in the history.

Over the past few years several other uninvolved editors have commented upon the obvious negative slant in this article; some have even tried to make it more objective, but all eventually give up. He seems to be able to spend unlimited time and write millions of words on WP - I just hope that this isn't being funded unwittingly by the US taxpayer! I remain hopeful that common sense will prevail sooner or later. Until then it's a matter of exercising restraint, even when his personal attacks and extreme rudeness go unpunished. I hope that this helps.--TraceyR (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks TraceyR, I appreciate your candid response. If you made it clear you have no COI, and he continues to call you a JP distributor, that is a problem. I have had very similar issues with his behavior on the USANA Health Sciences article, and I've seen similar battles with another editor and him over Amway and related articles. The trend seems to be a narrow focus of criticisms of MLM companies and their products, to the point where WP:DUCK would say there is a COI, or at least serious WP:TE that agrees with his personal views on the subject. There is no doubt MLM is a very divisive topic - distributors want to white wash and make articles promotional so they can sell more products or recruit more people. And critics throw all of MLM into the "scam" pool and want to see every MLM article as negative as possible. It is very difficult to deal with people on both ends of the spectrum and find people willing to tackle such hot topics from a NPOV. Anyway, thanks for your input - I now have JP on my watchlist after the recent RfC by an admin, so will look at it from time to time and weigh in when necessary.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 23:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red RfC/U

According to the RfC/U template: "All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page." Since RIR has posted a long thread in your section [1], it would be appropriate for you to move it to the Discussion page. Let me know if you have questions or need help. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Done - Thanks for the head's up.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 13:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Skellefteå Airport

Hello. I was doing some cleanup edits when I noticed this article's tone sounds like one or more contributors may have connections to the subject. It might not be a problem. I just thought a second opinion would help. Thanks. Zenvalharo (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Juice plus.

juice plus recommend 2 capsules of each daily. which in fact amounts to 3306 milligrams 3.3 grams of powder. Fruit ,Veg and berries average 90 percent water.  So the 3.3 grams add back the water you get 33 grams of juice from which the powder came from. 

Nutritionists recommend 400 grams minimum of daily fruit veg berries So the daily amount in juice plus capsules is 367 grams short of that. 33 is 8.5 percent of 400. I believe it should mention that aspect. re.

Juice plus Fruit Vegetable and Berry capsules 6 daily, contain 8.25 percent of daily recommended requirements of 400 grams.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerned nutrition (talk • contribs) 06:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Reliv Logo Blue.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Reliv Logo Blue.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 12Stone

The article 12Stone has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to meet WP:NCHURCH and WP:GNG. Only coverage is routine in nature.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~RAM (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:USANA-New-Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:USANA-New-Logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:12stone-logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:12stone-logo.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Usana-amphitheatre-logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Usana-amphitheatre-logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)