User talk:Chrislaw07

Hello,

You didn't explain this edit (which removed information about an interview in a public national television channel with millions of viewers and its legal consequences as reported in a magazine with a paid circulation of more than a quarter million) so I have reverted it for the time being.

Did you think that the case wasn't noteworthy enough, and if so, based on what policy/guideline?

- Tournesol (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, sorry if I am doing the "talk" incorrectly here. I think this is correct.

Also, sorry for now explaining the deletion. I meant to, but it did not come through using an iPad.

The deletion is simple-- there are thousands and thousands of interviews of people having all types of opinions. This one, from France, does not add anything other than another opinion. If we are going to add the opinion of someone who thinks this business is a "hidden pyramid," then I can add about 20 interviews of people that say the opposite. So, I just don't think it is helpful. It doesn't explain the business or inform people about the company. It's just a random comment.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

- chrislaw07 (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2012 (EST)


 * There are certainly thousands and thousands of interviews, but in this case ACN charged him for oral defamation, and this was the subject of an article in a major magazine. - Tournesol (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)