Jump to content

Talk:Scentura

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.42.17.116 (talk) at 23:54, 2 May 2016 (→Scentura Salespeople). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Further steps taken

Last result of the last whitewash attempt:

  1. An alert to the Conflict of Interest board.
  2. One Conflict of Interest editor found out that an internet designer involved in Scentura, Nick Brunson, was removing all the sources and created the whitewashed article.
  3. We then had a deletion discussion which was closed SNOWBALL keep.
  4. The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fashion Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Business were all alerted to this article.
  5. Active veteran editors User:Northamerica1000 and User:alf.laylah.wa.laylah are now involved in the article, making sure no more mass source deletions occur.
Current whitewash attempt:
  1. User:Stuartyeates actively involved in article now.
  2. WP:ANI - section entitled "topic ban of single purpose account on pyramid sales scheme
  3. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NickBrunson

Calendar2 (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making Sense of Things

Guys, here's what I'm trying to put across, it's fairly straightforward:

When you read the statements made in this article, and then you read the sources that the statements are drawn on, there's a disconnect. Most of these references simply identify Scentura as a supplier, if they even mention Scentura at all.

Yet for some reason, everyone wants to ignore this. How is that inline with WP policies for inclusion?

The changes I've tried to sustain in this article are all based on removing elements of this 'disconnect' and bringing the article more in-line with WP policies.

Here's an easy example: One of my changes is re-writing Scentura's business description for two reasons, 1) The proposed change is based on a more credible reference, and 2) there are references in this article that completely contradict Scentura's business description as it currently reads.

Just because my changes aren't congruent with public opinion, or with the opinion of veteran contributors, doesn't mean they're wrong.

Sorry if this seems 'longwinded' as someone labeled my explanations (isn't this the talk page? a place for discussion?). Please provide your thoughts, look forward to further discussion. Thank you. OregonDucks97401 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in commenting on the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#topic_ban_of_single_purpose_account_on_pyramid_sales_scheme and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NickBrunson. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oregon has been blocked.[1] discussion on ANI closed.[2] and now archived.[3] Calendar2 (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

quote from lawsuit judgement

I moved this from the main page to talk:

The court ruled:

Whether they are characterized as a sale of merchandise or delivery on consignment, both the language of the agreement and the parties' actions based on the agreement, as indicated in the testimony at the arbitration hearing, clearly establish that defendant was compensated by [Scentura] for referring other persons into the perfume sales business.[1]

I don't see how this is so important as to be added to the article. Maybe if it was worked into the paragraph itself instead? Calendar2 (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's relavent because this is the definition of a pyrmid sales scheme. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scentura Salespeople

In this article, it looks like the term "Indepedent salespeople" is used about half the time, and "Scentura's salespeople" the other half.

Seems like any instance of "Scentura salespeople" should be changed to "Independent salespeople." The BBB report on Scentura shows that the company has 9 employees, and states "Scentura Creations only sells products to independent distributors." That, plus most of the references state that the sales people are all Independent.

Thoughts?

76.90.17.202 (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the sales people are independent or not lies at the heart of the controversy here. "Independent salespeople" is absolutely the wrong term for them. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to refer to them simply as "salespeople" without any modification? 69.42.17.116 (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News Article

Here's a news article about Scentura: http://www.scenturacreations.com/images/atlanta-business-chronicle-10-5-1987.pdf Is this helpful at all? 76.90.17.202 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes, thank you, the original "Who wants to be rich". We have information on this already, but it is great to have the original. Calendar2 (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scentura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference court was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scentura&oldid=718345622"