User talk:Knverma/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, Knverma, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  -Will Beback · † · 22:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

PS:

A tag has been placed on Bill Britt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Hi. I checked the Bill Britt edit history and I saw that the article was deleted several times already. I guess the easiest thing for you to do is to post a comment, like the one on my talkpage, on Wikipedia:Deletion review and the discussion will follow there. Best regards. --Tone 12:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Google

To be honest I don't know the answer. If in doubt, assume that all of it is searchable. If it's important to you then I suggest posting a question, perhaps at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). -Will Beback · † · 22:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Britt World Wide

In the WP:DRV for Bill Britt , I saw that you said that the same article should also be at Britt World Wide. The way to do that is with a Wikipedia:Redirect so I have been bold and created the redirect to the restored article. Eluchil404 14:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Amway

Hiya. Re FTC v Amway, the 70% rule and 10 customer rules were indeed in place prior to the FTC case. They were not however crucial to the finding of Amway to not being an illegal pyramid. What the FTC said was that they prevent abuses of the marketing model - primarily inventory loading, but also helping ensure legitimate products. The 70% rule is often misinterpreted as a "70% retail sales rule" - ie you have to sell 70% of products to a non-distributor. This isn't the case, it's entirely about inventory loading. 70% of products you buy have to be used or resold. In other words, if you end up with a garage full of soap trying to get a "pin" then you're breaking the rules. In the old Amway model you would buy products and resell to your downline. Those wholesale sales are also covered by the 70% rule. In the new model A/Q mostly ships direct, so inventory loading is not an issue with downline volume, thus it primarily refers to personal use and sales to customers. The 10 customer rule is a slightly different story. If you have legitimate "outside" customers than this is "proof" that you have a legitimately marketable product. This protects against you against all sorts of accusations of scamming, which is why Amway/Quixtar has always kept it in some form. It was not however crucial to determination of whether you are an illegal pyramid or not. Indeed a few years ago in response to the Direct Selling Association, the FTC explicitly stated that the "level of internal consumption" (ie whether it's all used by distributors or not) plays no part in determining whether something is a pyramid or not. You can read the letter here. You may also want to review this blog post

Yes, as I pointed, I have not yet said anything about the interpretation of the rules. At least we should mention the names of the rules in the articles. For the interpretations we can quote some sources on which we have consensus. Whether these rules were "crucial" or just "an element" of the FTC decision is a very subtle point. At least that FTC link I mentioned emphasizes the need for products to move out of the network. I will check the links you gave, but I am offline for 2 days starting from now. -- Knverma 15:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find your link again, could you direct me please? Following too many articles :-(. The FTC letter I supplied clearly states that they do not "need" products to move out of the network. Also, be careful of non sequitur - the FTC often points out that outside sales are evidence that something is not a pyramid. This does not mean that lack of outside sales is evidence of a pyramid, that's a logical non sequitur. In any case, this issue is actually addressed in the Quixtar article, Quixtar rules explicitly require member/client volume in order to qualify for downline bonuses. On the other hand, this rule is not in place in the majority of international markets, which is Amway today and where the FTC doesn't have any jurisdiction. Have a good weekend --Insider201283 17:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continues on Amway talk tage. -- Knverma 19:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Blakey Report

We don't normally accept self-published material of this type. But an exception is made for material prepared by acknowledged experts. See WP:ATT. I think this falls within the 2nd exception to WP:ATT#Using questionable or self-published sources:

• When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one.

AS it says, care should be used when the material is used as a reference for the biography of a living person. -Will Beback · † · 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Vipassanaforum.com

Dear Knverma,

Thank you for your reply! My name is Anders and I am the founder of Vipassanaforum.com. The reason I added the link to the Vipassana article, is that there is great interest in finally establishing a forum for all Vipassana meditators in the world. Thus, I believe the link would be highly relevant in the articles for Vipassana and S.N. Goenka. I know that many meditators in this tradition would like to be able to contact fellow practicioners, and having Wikipedia link to our forum would make it easier for new users to join. Also notice that opposed to some of the other sites that are linked in the Vipassana article, mine does not have any commercial interests. That said, I do believe I made a mistake when I added the link to the articles for Buddhism and mindfulness.

Please let me know if you think it is okay that I put the link back in the articles for Vipassana and S.N. Goenka. I am planning on adding interviews and articles to a special section of the forum in the near future, which will make it more than just a regular message board.

Sincerely --Kid nightflyer 08:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Knverma,

Thanks for clearing this up! Obviously the removal is nothing but fair.

Sincerely --Kid nightflyer 13:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The nature of your edits

I have replaced the intro to Zen with sourced text, ditto for Yoga and Buddhism. Freedom skies| talk  19:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi

Are you aware of any other incidents stemming from Gandhiji's commentary ? Bakaman 22:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

Your conduct is becoming increasingly disruptive. Do not attach incorrect tags in articles. _{Freedom skies| talk}  21:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The tags reflect concerns expressed by certain editors. Please discuss on talk page before removing them. Thanks. --Knverma 21:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The tags are incorrect and undermine the peer reviewed work (by factual accuracy). Reliable, mainstream literature must be used to back up assertions, not tag vandalism. _{Freedom skies| talk}  22:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There are concerns other than sourcing. For benefit of all, please discuss on talk pages of articles instead of here. --Knverma 22:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There are concerns other than sourcing highlights your disregard for statements based on peer reviewed work. You have been consistently engaging in tag warring and placing improper tags in various articles. I suggest you stop placing incorrect tags with persistence and Chinese bias. _{Freedom skies| talk}  22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, asking for removal of sourced text is not going to be appropriate. I would also suggest not writing "cleanup" where excellent citations are provided and spell checks completed. That is considered vandalism. _{Freedom skies| talk}  22:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am moving the discussion to Talk:Yoga and Buddhism. --Knverma 22:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Zen

I have shortened the history section but have moved the content to China. I will try not to edit on Zen and Yoga and Buddhism in the near future. I will edit in case a citation is distorted, section blanked or clear vandalism done. I thought I would let you know. _{Freedom skies| talk}  22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot expect to be inactive on talk page and still expect editors not to remove disputed texts. I will post my further concerns soon and please also respond to concerns of other editors. All editors cannot keep waiting for you. --Knverma 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No one asked you to wait for me. I asked you to stop tag vandalism, distortion of citations, and blanking sections. _{Freedom skies| talk}  23:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You agree to respond to comments on talk pages? --Knverma 23:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ACN

Knverma, you are a very annoying individual.

Can you explain your reasons for trying to discredit the company ACN? Louispgagne 23:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel annoyed. From User talk:Louispgagne and Talk:ACN Inc. it appears that you have grievances against lots of editors on this issue. Just remember that Wikipedia works by consensus. You may consider dispute resolution mechanisms like RFC or mediation. --Knverma 07:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Anubhavklal

I have changed the 3rr block to also block users editing from that IP; this should hopefully take care of the sockpuppeting issues, I hope. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Quixtar

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Quixtar. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.180.17 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 June 2007

Please do not delete contents without proper justification. If you have alternate information which is more relaible, you are welcome to put it here. Please remember wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. Do not delete any information just because you dont like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.180.17 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 June 2007

So you are having fun. See you after your block expires. --Knverma 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the contents again... 75.73.188.53 01:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And discussed them on talk page. --Knverma 07:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Knverma,

Welcome back. Thank you for cleaning up the article. Definitely I see a positive change in you this time. Once again thank you for contributing to the article and keeping up Wikipedia in good shape. 12.104.244.6 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Knverma: can i remove the 'poor edit' section on the quixtar talk with your & my comment? it is unnecessary now--Snideology 06:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2