User talk:Historik75

"cleared the company of the charges."
I don't think you should use that exact wording unless Amway was actually "charged." And "under investigation" is not equivalent to "charged." I cannot speak in your DRN, but the distinction is important. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Sfarney, thank you for your comment. Not being a native speaker I cannot tell for sure. According to the source "Amway UK (was) cleared at the High Court of ‘dream selling’, operating an unlawful lottery and being an unlawful trading scheme". In 1979 Amway was accused (charged?) of running a pyramid scheme  and the decision was the company's sales plan was not an illegal pyramid scheme. I would be very glad if some native speaker could help me improve the proposed text to be grammatically correct. Perhaps you could? Best regards, --Historik75 (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I've already objected against the formulation "has been subject to investigation as a pyramid scheme" on the Talk page of the article because it seemed to me that it could imply that Amway was a pyramid scheme and as such it was investigated, but I was told by another editor who defended that statement that it didn't mean that. According to him it means that there is a possibility that Amway isn't a pyramid scheme, but was investigated as a potential one. Do you agree with this explanation or should we reformulate the text to be more accurate? Thank you in advance for your help.--Historik75 (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing and Forum Shopping Warning
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhode Island Red (talk • contribs)
 * I suggest you stop with this nonsense warning. As you can see (and it can be verified by Administrators), the user Sfarney was the one who first contacted me (instead of me contacting him) and suggested grammatical revision of my version. I believe there is nothing wrong with me accepting his offer. Because I am not a native speaker, I certainly welcome any suggestion. I strictly refuse to be drawn into personal attacks.--Historik75 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you care to provide a diff edit to back up your assertion? I also couldn't help noticing that your fellow WP:SPA Icerat stated that he/she was contacted by you about text that is the current focus of DRN; however, there is no evidence of such contact on the user's talk page, which suggests stealth canvassing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for that evidence if you can find the time to provide it. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're contradicting yourself RIR. By definition stealth canvassing is secret, yet you point out I explicitly stated it on my very first contribution to the discussion at hand! Some secret :/. I recommend you stop with WP:HARASS and WP:HUSH. --Icerat (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No he isn't. Merely becasue something's officially an intended secret does not preclude it from being general knowledge. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  15:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How is something "officially an intended secret" when one of the parties involved divulges it immediately? --Icerat (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly; I could not have phrased it better myself. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  20:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Multi-level marketing
Hello. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Multi-level marketing seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Historik75. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Amway, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. ''You edits give the impression that you have a conflict of interest. I suggest you declare if you have a connection and then we can have a look at your requested edits.'' Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Lemongirl1942. Yes, I have a connection (and access to many materials) regarding Amway and the whole MLM industry around the world. However, I am not paid for my edits here. Now, would you please take the time and review my edits and User:Rhode Island Red's reverts? I tried to balance the article, but User:Rhode Island Red would not allow it. I wonder if User:Rhode Island Red has a connection with some MLM company or their distributors or a company that is in direct competition with the manufacturers of food supplements. It seems to me that he has a conflict of interest too. I have never tried to hide any negative information. Rather I tried to paint a whole picture, not only the black side. --Historik75 (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)