Talk:Quixtar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

Archive 1

[edit] Archived material that might still be open for discussion

[edit] www.quixtar.com

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

[edit] www.amquix.info

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

[edit] www.quixtarfacts.com

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

[edit] MSNBC story

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

[edit] Quixtar Response

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

[edit] Merchants of Deception

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

[edit] ThisBizNow

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to NOT include this link. Also, see "Take 2" for inclusion thoughts as well as "Article rewrite"

[edit] Companies subvert search results to squelch criticism

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

[edit] Quixtar Wiki

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.
  • Consensus was to INCLUDE But the BOT guarding this article is reverting the edit to add this... still vote to include: Wikipedians have on several occassions suggested that if people want more info they go to "other sources". QuixtarWiki has tons of information on Amway/Quixtar and the people involved, which by all rights don't belong in an encyclopedia but are a reference point for people doing research. INCLUDE Gallwapa 18:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This particular link should be included for two reasons: 1.) it's another wiki that gives a wealth of information and detail related to this article that doesn't necessarily belong in this article 2.) Those seeking additional information and detail on the topic need at least one source (such as another developing wiki) that provides such data. The Mule 13:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is another wiki run by an independant group considered reliable, especially given the amount of self promotion that seems to be a speciality of quixtar? David D. (Talk) 18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You put the link back and say: "This does pass WP:RS". How do you know? In what way does it pass? Saying it is so, does not make it so. David D. (Talk) 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, for starters because it's a wiki and anyone can edit it. The Mule 11:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
But who cares about a quixtarwiki? You think there is a balanced opinion at that site? How many edits a day does it get? You cannot compare it to this wikipedia. It is more like a blog in a wiki format. David D. (Talk) 15:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Quixtar Supporter and QuixtarWiki is actually run by a Quixtar critic (Eric Janssen of QuixtarBlog) but I vote to keep the link. It has so far been shown to be run in what I consider a fair and reasonable (and importantly, fairly impartial), manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Insider201283 (talk • contribs).
The point is that the Reliable Source of quixtarwiki is being questioned. It's run by the same software running this wiki. It counts self-professed Quixtar supporters, detractors and neutral parties among its principle contributors. There's a wealth of information there. What's not clear is why a Wikipedian wouldn't want an external link to another wiki that provides much more information than any news article or official corporate site could provide. And it should also be noted that such detail isn't appropriate for this Wikipedia article but it's very appropriate for a wiki focusing on Quixtar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Mule (talk • contribs).
Are you implying that it must be a reliable source because it runs wiki software? With regard to your demographic of its users, how do you know? It does not have the same volume of users and is very low profile. Given there were 10,000 quixtar IBO's at the 2003 conference it could easily be run only by quixtar supporters. i find it strange that you find it hard to believe a wikipedian here might doubt the objectivity of its contributors. Of course it could be much less objective than news articles. And of course we link to Quixtars official corporate site and clearly that site is not objective, but no one expects it to be objective. Remember that wikipedia is not a link farm. Since there are masses of links that various parties wish to link to from this article, I think it is very valid to keep linking to a minimum. And for those that want to find out more, that's what google is designed to do. David D. (Talk) 06:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This was voted on and elected to stay. Thanks for your input but it should stay. The Mule 09:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Give me a break three people commented on it;. There was no vote. Furthermore voting is not important. The quality of discussion is. One solid argument will defeat tens of votes. If it were not so, vote stacking would win each decision. Does this mean you have given me your best evidence that it is a reliable source? David D. (Talk) 14:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This simply means that I don't wish to continue to debate. You obviously have some sort of agenda and that's fine but don't bring it here to Wikipedia. Look up the article on Microsoft. Do you see any blogs linked from there? Why should that be there? Because it's a valuable resource just like the Quixtar Wiki. I find it interesting that you doubt the voting. Basically it appears that all you care about is your own opinion.

I think it is silly to have too many links to unreliable sources. I have never edited microsoft and i can assure you i would cut the blogs there too. What is my agenda? I have cut unreliable sources that are both for and against quixtar. Wikipedia is not a link farm. That has nothing to do with an agenda. We need only a few but reliable links. If you doubt this get a second opinion. I will post this on RfC and see what others think. David D. (Talk) 02:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online Journalism Review

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.
  • Vote to include...useful stats on here including IBO earnings. Gallwapa 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Official Website for Independent Business Owners Powered by Quixtar

Summary comments prior to archiving. No consensus on this link. NOT included for time being.

[edit] The facts concerning Independent Business Ownership in North America for IBOs Powered by Quixtar

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to NOT include this link.

[edit] ThisBizNow.com - Take 2

Summary comments prior to archiving. Consensus was to INCLUDE this link.
  • In inspecting the history, I find that no one except for Illusion408 voted to "include" this link. Hiding behind a confusing removal of other users' comments under the guise of "see history for detail" seems extremely misleading and disruptive. I will again be removing the link. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, there were 2 of us who voted after like 2 months ...and we both said include. I didn't know how to archive talk... so I did my best...*blush*... Gallwapa 14:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The blogs

I think we should not include any of the blogs. It sets a bad precendent and is generally not accepted on wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Added Weblogs, one positive, one negative, and one employee to be fair for all. --65.40.167.66 14:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)CK
This has nothing to do with fairness. Blogs are unreliable sources and should not be used. Two wrongs do not make a right. I see the bot has already removed them. I'm not sure you want to get into a revert war with a house keeping computer. David D. (Talk) 14:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that I noticed is you have some of the authors of their own site/blog adding themselves to this page. I don't know about anyone else but I think that takes quite a bit away from Wikipedia when the operator's add their own site to this page. -Independent Patriot

[edit] Quixtar Blog

Copy of comments prior to archiving. In summary, no consensus was reached but this link has remained in the article.
  • This was actually removed...I still vote to keep it, it is a useful resource and has broke many stories, including the Quixtar Googlebombing attempt (which was later picked up by the news organizations listed below...). I feel its a better source than Amquix.info, infact, and If I had to choose, I'd take this one. Gallwapa 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed again, mainly because it sets a bad precedent. It is generally accepted that wikipedia articles do not link to blogs, no matter how good. Once you add one, every Tom, Dick and Harry want to make a case for their own "excellent, objective" blog. This then leads to the link farm mentality that was so obvious on this page. David D. (Talk) 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quixtar Sucks

Copy of comments prior to archiving. In summary, Consensus was to NOT include this link.

[edit] MLMlaw blog

Copy of comments prior to archiving. In summary, consensus was to INCLUDE this link.
  • Good info here, but it is now a dead site. Vote to remove. Much of the useful information is on the "QuixtarBlog". Gallwapa 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bwwsot.blogspot.com

Copy of comments prior to archiving. In summary, consensus was to INCLUDE this link.

[edit] Quixtar Topic at MLM Blog

Yet another blog that an anon IP is trying to add to this article. I have not even read the content. A quick looks shows many advertisements on the page (commercial links- are click throughs generating revenue for this user?). As I have said above, regardless of the quality of information available, wikipedia is not in the business of promoting blogs. If someone really wants to find out all the different opinions on Quixtar, after reading this article, they can easily use google to quickly find many different blogs and other resources on the web. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supporters

Do people like Paul Harvey really support Quixtar or are they paid to endorse quixtar? Sure he advertises their products on his show, but i don't see how this is the same as supporting the product. David D. (Talk) 00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I really question the whole section and whether or not it actually adds anything to the article. It doesn't provide specific endorsements (Ronald Regan thinks Amway/Quixtar helps American's do "X"...) it just says he spoke. Fantastic. I speak daily - often times in public places where others hear me. It doesn't mean I endorse the particular venue... Gallwapa 04:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Although there is a reliable quote from Asafa Powell, for what it's worth, where he says that Quixtar products improved his performance and helped him get the 100m world record. Of course, it is a no brainer he would say this if they pay him to endorse the products. David D. (Talk) 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Asafa Powell was introduced to Nutrilite by his brother, whose wife's parents were Quixtar IBOs. It wasn't until sometime after the world record that Quixtar/Nutrilite even discovered he was using their products and they suggested a partnership. There's a promotional video on youtube [1]--Insider201283 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to wikiepedia, so I don't understand? There was a section for who endorses Quixtar and somebody added a list and linked to a video with those very people saying they support Quixtar. It's not like the video is on wikipedia, it was just used to support the website post wasn't it? --LordTedric 11:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Who made the video? Is it used for advertising purposes? It it a reliable source? Do the supporters have a vested interest or are they neutral? Is anyone paid to appear on the advertisment? Is the government spokesperson speaking for himself or for the government? And so on. David D. (Talk) 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Did you actually watch the video David? To query whether John Engler giving John Engler's opinion on something is a "reliable source" on John Engler's opinion is farcical. Nowhere is it claimed that a "government spokesperson" is speaking for the government or that the government endorses Quixtar, either in the text I added or in the video. However, having the publishers and CEOs of magazines and companies endorse something is also self-evidently giving the opinions of those companies - that is their job. The names and positions of each person is listed. The video was not publicly released at the time and is not an "advertisement" per se. To the best of my knowledge nobody was paid, but if you're going to reject sources because of the *potential* for bias because they *might* have been paid and not giving their real opinion - in other words, accusing them all of lying - well frankly virtually every source becomes untenable. Newspapers, medical journals, magazines, whatever, they all take paid advertising. The video is conclusive support that these respected individuals, who are not Quixtar IBOs and do not work for Quixtar, support Quixtar. --Insider201283 19:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I did watch the video. Whether my opinon is farcical or not this is still a promotional video. You deny that? I am not accusing anyone of lying, i am saying i want to see a secondary source that does not come from the company, at least. As i watch source come and go on this article the common theme is that they are almost all from the company directly. We already have plenty of their own stuff on this page. Again, wikipedia is not here for Quixtar to show case its product. David D. (Talk) 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
So let's be clear here - you are stating that a person stating their opinion is not a valid source for that person's opinion and requires a secondary source? --Insider201283 20:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Insider201283, David. A video of a person giving their endorsement is pretty much the strongest possible "primary source" you can get that they endorse it, I can't see how it can be disputed??? --LordTedric 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

—Let me be the first to raise the red flag here. I find it very interesting that Lord Tedric has started contributing today after Insider has been called for adding his own site to Wikipedia as a link and then linking his site again by cramming in some text and linking a video that is nothing more then simple promotional material. The very next day Lord Tedric shows up out of nowhere and adds back the video (and the link to Insider's website) the day after it was removed. Not to mention taking an interest only in this paticular video. Then on top of all that their timestamps for their posts here seem to be pretty close together.

As far as this video being bias, one only needs to see it to know it is clearly bias. Many of these companies are partner companies with Amway and therefore have a financial interest in making these videos. Many of the speakers refer directly to the business relationship with the company. Getting an endorsement from those who have a financial interest in your success is anything but unbiased.

Also, since all the POV sites and blogs have gotten the boot Insider has simply been seeking ways to get links to his site from Wikipedia, which is a clear bias POV site. If you are going to let links like that stand then you open up a can of worms where other POV sites will add videos mixed in with BS text and other things just to get the links. If Wikipedia plans to stay unbiased in their articles, this video needs to stay deleted and any links to a clearly bias website as well. Otherwise you may as well open the floodgates and let anyone with a blog or site about Quixtar post a link here. Independent patriot 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links, Round 3...

Uh? I guess the concept of the discussion-for-links got forgotten?... Gallwapa 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i did read the discussion but there seemed to be too few contributors to make sense. My feelings are blogs are not useful and too many links to Quixtar controlled sites are not useful. I tried to cut the links down with an objective criteria in mind (reduce the link farm look and retain reliable sources). A compromise might be to quote the sites as sources but that gets back to the problem of what is a reliable source. David D. (Talk) 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Either we include blogs in this topic or not. It is not fair for a select few to decide which blogs are OK and which ones are not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.237.246 (talk • contribs).

If you're referring to my comment above I said "My feelings are blogs are not useful", in other words no blogs. Who said anything about "a select few to decide which blogs"? Blogs are unreliable sources and should never be used, let alone five or six blogs. David D. (Talk) 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Team / Thanks

Can anyone expand the details of the connection between Quixtar and "The Team"? I don't understand it well enough to explain it. I would like to thank the many people who have contributed to this article and this discussion. It helped me understand this thing when a friend tried to get me to sign up for "The Team" without telling me of the connection to Amway. Barwick 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC) The Team is an organization that teaches specific techniques and offers support on building a Quixtar-affiliated business. There is no connection to Amway, short of being owned by the same parent corporation (much like Aston Martin and Ford are owned by Ford Motor Company, but are obviously not the same companies). And on a personal note, I'm sure your friend checked "this team thing" out, and believes it's good and would be good for you, are you going to trust your friend whom you've known for years? decades?, or some strangers on the internet?

[edit] BOT

I asked another admin on IRC about those links and decided to reduce the blocklist to only the blogspot and the www.thisbiznow.com ones. Thanks.Voice-of-All 19:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, it should not go off any more since I just removed 2 other links that I forgot about (though there are still 2 spam links).Voice-of-All 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spokespersons

I just added back Powell since it can be sourced. Having said that, it is from http://www.prnewswire.com/ (but published on Forbes.com) which seems to be an advertising agency? I'm not sure this is a reliable source and the article in Forbes (from PR Newswire), reads like promotional material. I would be happy to delete the Powell stuff unless we can find an independant source for this information. David D. (Talk) 14:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unscrupulous vs undercover

Barwick (talk • contribs) wishes to use the word unscrupulous to describe an investigative journalism report. An example of the rationale is here as quote: "undercover" implies it was done with respect for rights of innocent people (like an undercover cop). If I tricked your kids into letting me into your house to watch your family, is that "undercover"? End Quote. I stand by my comment that the use of the word is Berwick own POV opinion of the investigation. Undercover seems to be descriptive of what happened. Unscrupulous paints a picture. here are the two definitions of undercover:

  1. Performed or occurring in secret: an undercover investigation.
  2. Engaged or employed in spying or secret investigation: undercover FBI agents.

Neither definition of undercover "implies it was done with respect for rights of innocent people". Undercover means it was secret. This could be either bad or good. Uncrupulous can only mean bad, consequently the use of the word undercover is significantly less POV than unscrupulous. What do others think? David D. (Talk) 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way if you have a quote about it being unscrupulous then that might be able to be used in the article. Your own opinion counts for nothing. Read WP:OR for more on this issue. David D. (Talk) 19:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Litigation

this post on Qblog has all you need to know on what a pyramid is. In summary, if you do not have payment for recruiting then you cannot be an illegal pyramid. It's the sine qua non of an illegal pyramid. This was made clear in FTC v Amway ...

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
BY PITOFSKY, Commissioner:
...
A. Allegations That the Amway Plan Is a Pyramid Scheme
...
The Commission had described the essential features of an illegal pyramid scheme:
Such schemes are characterized by the payment by participants of money to the company in return for which they receive (1) the right to sell a product and (2) the right to receive in return for recruiting other participants into the program rewards which are unrelated to sale of the product to ultimate users.

This has been repeated again and again in case after case. Links to first sources are in the first link provided. The claim the 70% rule and Retail Sales Rule are what makes Amway/Quixtar a non-pyramid are, to be charitable, a gross misunderstanding by MLM critics that has been repeated ad nauseum over the internet.

Now, as for the 70% rule, to quote FTC v Amway again -

The '70 percent rule' provides that '[every] distributor must sell at wholesale and/or retail at least 70% of the total amount of products he bought during a given month in order to receive the Performance Bonus due on all products bought . . ..' This rule prevents the accumulation of inventory at any level.

It's about inventory loading, and it includes sales at wholesale, ie to downline distributors for resale. The statement above is from the Court in 1979. Here it is again clarified by Quixtar in a letter in 2004, since the "misunderstanding" keeps getting spread, even as far as here on Wikipedia -

Specifically, the Rule requires that an IBO sell at least 70% of the products purchased monthly to downline IBOs, members, and clients

[2]

It's only "arguable" if you ignore the guys who wrote the rule and ignore the courts who interpret it. The 70% rule and Retail Sales Rule were found to protect against inventory loading and to encourage retail sales (that is, sales to end users, it's not even specified this has to be a non-distributor, and the letter talks about that too).

[edit] External Links redux

WP:RS is not the correct standard to apply to external links in an article, as WP:RS is meant to apply to sources cited in the body of the article. I propose that links that were erroneously removed under "Failure to pass WP:RS" be restored. DonIncognito 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If you wish, but how is it possible that this topic requires so many extermal links? A why would wikipedia discourage unreliable sources but then have external links to everyone's favourite blog, POV web page and self published books at the bottom? David D. (Talk) 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

There's a dispute above about whether a video of a person giving their opinion is acceptable evidence of that persons opinion, but reading the "controversy" section there doesn't seem to be any sources at all except the dateline video. What gives? Why is that acceptable? --LordTedric 20:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it from a Quixtar source? Is it a promotional video or an aired "report"? Is it journalism or marketing? David D. (Talk) 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
sorry, I mustn't have been clear. I wasn't querying the use of the dateline video as a source, I was querying why an essentially whole unsourced section was acceptable? --LordTedric 22:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dateline did an investigative journalism piece and invited Quixtar to interview with them as well. Quixtar declined. The video Insider has been trying to add to get a link to his site from Wikipedia is a promotional video with many of the endorsements coming from the founders and CEOs of companies who are partnered with Quixtar/Amway and therefore have a clear financial interest in endorsing Quixtar/Amway. Matter of fact many of them elude to the business relationship in that video. Clear not a bias promotional video for Amway/Quixtar. Also, why would a video that only mentions Amway be added to the Quixtar page at all. I thought they were two different companies. Independent patriot 02:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, when I watched it I'd swear the video mentions Quixtar quite a few times, the microsoft guy definitely did. I'm also not sure with the obsession of the video. It's not being shown here, it was just being used as a source to back up the claims in the text wasn't it? It's clearly a primary source under WP:RS isn't it? Anyway this still isn't about what I'm asking here. There appears to be no WP:RS support for the entire controversy section except the dateline video? How can all that be put in with no sources? --LordTedric 12:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry i must have got confused,I had thouight you were challenging the NBC source. Why don't you move the text you think is unsourced to the talk page. Then someone can either find a source and reinsert it or it can just stay here out of sight. David D. (Talk) 13:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Having watched the promotional video I'd like to make a couple of comments. One, it does not show companies endorsing Amway/Quixtar. It shows executives of companies saying nice things about Amway/Quixtar. If we are going to refer to their comments we should summarize them more accurately. Second, it does appear to be a promotional video. Based on the Chinese subtitles it appears intended to promote Amway/Quixtar in China. Advertisements and promotional materials often include compensated celebrity edorsements, and it isn't clear that these are genuine expressions of opinion. Lastly, if we're going to link to it I suggest that we use a direct Youtube link. -Will Beback 23:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Watching it again yes the Microsoft guy does mention Quixtar on his segments. However, this video was clearly for Amway in China. With all due respect Will I feel you are wrong. Those companies are endorsing Amway. Not one of those executives refers to themselves. All of them who are heads of companies refer to their companies when endorsing Quixtar, and refer to their business partnership. A few examples:
MCI - Said MCI and Amway were "ideal partners" and that the business relationship has brought "customers for us".
Franklin Covey - Says they are committed to providing tools and principles for accomplish Amway goals (anyone here actually think they are providing them free of charge). They also say they are excited about the relationship between the two companies.
Rubbermaid - They say they are proud of their long-term business partnership with Amway.
Macleans - Says they are honored to partner with Amway.
Newsweek - Says they are proud of their "marketing partnership" with Amway.
Every single one of those heads of companies, or executives (even the Microsoft guy) uses their companies name when giving the endorsement and not their own. Clearly they are envoking their company in this promotion of Amway. Every one of those companies has a clear financial reason to endorse Amway. Amway success can only mean more dollars for their companies. The only guy on there that could be seen as an unbiased endorsement with nothing to gain would be the United Nations guy.
This video is clearly not an unbiased video, and the site that is being linked is clearly not an unbiased site. Therefore neither should be on this page unless we want to open the flood gates. You let one on and you will have to let them all on. Just my 2 cents. Independent patriot 04:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The question comes down to whether the video can be considered a valid primary source under WP:RS doesn't it? --Insider201283 07:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
At no point in the video does "Microsoft" say anything. A person who is employed by Microsoft says something. In any case, this is hardly better then filling an article about a book with the comments from the dustjacket. However, if you want to say that "Joe Schmoe of Microsoft has said in a promotional video that Amway is really great" then that would be accurate. -Will Beback 06:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I've ever heard a "company" talk, Will. It's the companies representatives that talk on behalf of the company. Are you claiming CEOs and Chairmans of companies do not talk on behalf of those companies? Who does then? --Insider201283 07:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You can use the material, just attribute the comments to the speakers and give the context of the video. -Will Beback 07:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
So does that mean they are putting up the video, or they can have the text of the comments from the speakers? I don't mind that, but I don't see valid reason for the video, or a link to a clearly biased site. Independent patriot 00:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. You're OK with the information, you just don't want the source included because the site is pro-Quixtar? --Insider201283 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not OK with the video, but have no problem with text being put up with what some of those people said. Personally, I think the only unbiased viewpoint is the UN guy. Everyone else has a financial gain from saying those things. Also, I believe any text put up should have a statement with it showing that these companies have a professional business relationship with Amway/Quixtar and it is not known whether they were paid for this endorsement. If an admin decides the video should be allowed then it most certainly should not be linked to your site Insider. The only reason you put this up in the first place was for that link to your site. With Wikipedia being number 2 on search results for Quixtar, there is no doubt a link would drive quite a bit of traffic to a new site without much traffic. Also, your site is POV in favor of Quixtar. If they will allow your site then they might as well open the floodgates for any POV site. Independent patriot 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you've noticed, but my site has no advertising at all. I'm not interested in traffic, I'm interested in truth and facts, it doesn't really worry me were it is obtained. I put this text up because it's true and factual, and it's linked to the video because it's the source and wikipedia should be sourced.
The heck you are not interested in traffic. I know you Insider and I know why you started that site and I have seen what you have on there. You may be interested in all that but your site doesn't show it. Your site is clearly biased and the only reason you put that video up is a for a link to your site. I have seen your history here and all you were doing before was removing critical sites and trying to keep adding yours even though it kept getting deleted because of it's bias. So you can drop the innocence act. You are an Amway IBO overseas and have a real chip on your shoulder for Eric Jannsen and Scott Larsen. Bottom line your site is bias and a link to it from here is unacceptable unless links are going to be allowed for bias critical sites as well. Independent patriot 02:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
You've made it very clear your problem isn't with the video, it's with me. The video is factual. If it has facts you don't like on it, that's your problem. Facts by definition are not biased. Those people endorsed Quixtar. Deal with it. --Insider201283 08:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't care who endorsed them. I know you don't care either. You only care about the link to your site to drive up traffic. Not to mention those companies stand to financially gain from their endorsement which hardly makes it biased. I would encourage anyone to go through your contrib history and see the sites you deleted and why and then see all the times you added your own site even though that is very much frowned upon. Tell you what if the video really matters link it from youtube.com, your failure to do so only shows I am right about you only caring about the link to your site and not the video. Remember I know you Insider and your shady history.Independent patriot 06:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
So you are OK to put the endorsements up with the link to the youtube video? --Insider201283 12:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No, not really but if the admin is going to allow a link to youtube I can compromise. I would however still like a ruling on whether it needs to be stated that many of those companies have a financial partnership with Amway and therefore stand to benefit financially from Amway success. Of course to me that means basically a paid endorsement but if that statement is in there I can let a reader decide for themselves. One note of caution is that there is still ways to drive up a sites traffic since I know Insider uploaded the video to youtube. This still has potential for opening the flood gates for other POV sites to do a similar tactic.Independent patriot 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone (no, not me) has also put the info and link to the video on QuixtarWiki. Would that be OK for you? Should pass WP:RS as a valid secondary source with supporting primary source. It's even run by Quixtar critics, which I'm sure makes it a far more valid source in your mind, but I have no problem with it re POV. --Insider201283 21:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikis are not reliable sources. We should not be using them as sources. -Will Beback 23:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The wiki is not the primary source. The video is the source. According to WP:RS when quoting a source that may or may not be reliable, eg a wiki, it's sources should be considered. The source for each individual endorsement is the person themselves, as per the video, thus the wiki article is in the case indisputably accurate. --Insider201283 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

<-- So why don't we just link to Youtube? -Will Beback 01:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Because WP:RS says to avoid it, but if that's the only think IP will agree to, then sure. To be frank it seems the problem here isn't the validity of the information or the primary source. Independent Patriot apparently just doesn't what the article to link to any sites he doesn't approve of. POV and bias is in regard to the accuracy of the information. In this case there appears to be no dispute as to the accuracy. I'd note that quixtarwiki is already used as a source in the "endorsements" section and is also listed in the links.--Insider201283 01:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No let me be clear in that I don't like the video either. However, if Will is going to allow it then I can compromise as long as a biased POV site is not linked. That will open the floodgates for all other POV sites to do the same. Also, I would like a ruling from an admin as I feel there needs to be a statement added that many of the people in the video represent companies that have a financial partnership with Amway and therefore stand to benefit financially from their endorsement. If that disclaimer is put in text before the link to the video and the video is linked to youtube.com then I can compromise on this. But let's be clear that if it was up to me the video would not be allowed because of the relationship between Amway and the company reps giving the endorsements.Independent patriot 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh good grief. You don't think perhaps the very fact they have a business relationship with the company is an endorsement in itself? Quixtar does not pay those companies to be business partners (with the exception of Microsoft as a development partner I would assume). Quixtar doesn't pay the then Governor of Michigan. Quixtar doesn't pay the head of the Chamber of Commerce. Your tautological view appears to be that anyone who endorses quixtar is by definition biased towards quixtar so therefore the endorsement can be shown! An endorsement IS a bias. I note looking through the history of this article you haven't onced challenged the use of any single site being run by a critic as being biased. Not once. Cry me a river. --Insider201283 17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
History eh? Yeah let's look at history, such as your contribs history which shows you deleting several critical sites while adding your own biased POV site. Any comments on that Insider? Didn't think so. As far as the endorsements go the only endorsements I am talking about are the ones from company reps. Having a financial interest in the gain of a company gives a big financial incentive to do an endorsement for them. If you got a video with just the Chamber of Commerce, UN, and Governor of Michigan then we don't have an issue do we? But hey if an endorsement is a bias then I think you just disqualified your own video didn't you? Also to address your desperate attempt to try and lay accusations on me, when I registered many of the POV sites critic and supporter alike were being removed. Most by you of course. I think the links that are there now are fine.
Wow, you guys still fighting over this. Independent Patriot, I think "bias" relates to whether a source can be considered accurate or not, not whether what the source is reporting shows any bias. Unless you think Insider201283 has faked the video, then it's unquestionably a primary source for the endorsements. Whether you think those people are biased or not really doesn't matter. There's no claim being made about whether their endorsements are right or not, just that they did the endorsement. The claim was made those people endorsed quixtar. A primary source was provided unquestionably backing up the claim. I don't see where the problem is?--LordTedric 20:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well welcome back Lord Tedric. Interesting to see you back just after the admin sent a note to myself and Insider, kin of like how you first showed up to add Insider's site just after he got called for adding it himself. I have made my position clear on this several times, and I have also made it clear that there were very few neutral endorsements in that video because many of the companies have a financial interest in Amway. However, I have already stated I would not argue the video being put up with a link to YouTube. Insider is the one who apparently wants the link to his site. All I have asked for is an admin to decide if a statement needs to be included about the financial relationship between the companies. Honestly, if all of what I am saying really doesn't matter then putting up the video shouldn't be a problem. But for some reason you and Insider keep fighting over something that you keep telling me doesn't matter.Independent patriot 15:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The video is available directly from Youtube. -Will Beback 21:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines discourage linking directly to youtube due to risk of copyright issues. Linking to another site with the relevant text supported by the video bypass this as a problem. --Insider201283 08:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The guidelines discourage linking to any site that hosts probable copyright violations, particularly external links. Unless the other hosting site owns the copyright, it and Youtube are identical in this regard. Since the video is actually hosted on Youtube, we might as well go straight to the source. -Will Beback 09:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
See how hard Insider is fighting to get his link on this site. Now he is trying to discredit you tube when that is where he has the video in the first place. C'mon, this is now too obvious. Not only is Will correct in his statement, but once again Insider's site is clearly biased and allowing the link will have to allow any link from other biased sites who pull the same stunt Independent patriot 06:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Not me "discrediting" it, it's mentioned in WP:RS --Insider201283 21:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't either, but if an editor feels the need to do so then it should be done correctly. -Will Beback 00:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#YouTube has been added recently. Since all versions of the video are hosted by Youtube, the problem is common to all of them. -Will Beback · † · 09:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GMC truck incident

I am not going to revert it yet but bring it to the talk page. I still stand by my comment that this is original research. The formula currently used in the article is A) NBC criticise Quixtar (cite 1) B) NBC criticised about truck incident (cite 2) leading to C) NBC of Quixtar not reliable. This is a good example of original research. To avoid this unencyclopedic editorialising it needs to be structured as followed; A) NBC criticise Quixtar (cite 1) B) NBC criticised about Quixtar article (cite 3). As i see it cite 2 has no business in this article. Cite 3 is required and it should be from a reliable source. David D. (Talk) 18:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the truck incident has to do with this. I understand Dateline rigged up a truck to make it look more sensational, but to link that to Quixtar there has to be some proof from a reliable source that they rigged up the hidden video that we saw to make their show look more sensational. Does anyone dispute the hidden video? Has anyone gotten proof from a reliable source that the hidden video was rigged and planned by Dateline? Now I don't think Dateline's depiction of Quixtar is 100% accurate, but it certainly addresses some issues within the business. The problem is those issues are more with the Motivational Organizations and not Quixtar the corporation. But, for some reason many are hinged on this truck incident that happened more then 10 years before the Quixtar episode even aired and there is no proof even hinting that Dateline did the same thing to Quixtar. Independent patriot 04:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary by anon IP

I removed this information posted by 70.186.203.234 (talk • contribs) from the article since it seems more like talk page commentary. David D. (Talk) 09:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It is also of worthy mention that Quixtar reps. in the Hampton Roads area do not enforce the 70% rule, and in fact (as IBO's, some friends and I experienced this directly) the leaders make house calls to remind people to switch their business volume from 'personal' to 'client' which seems to me like squeezing through a loophole.
  • On Quixtar's defence to Dateline, they issued that Dateline used misrepresenation about the truth. On the home page of Quixtar.com it takes a few well placed navigations but there is a disclaimer that over 98% of business owners will never achieve profitablility. To further the matters, on of the techniques used at open meetings is to claim that a person will save $86 dollars a month shopping on Quixtar. However, again using Quixtar.com's own website, it takes a while, and some serious navigating, but again there is a disclaimer, that says that most IBO's actually operate at a yearly loss of over $900. Quixtar reps said that the majority of people are not angry, but that Dateline sought out people who did not make it and were angry. 186,000 complaints have been filed against Quixtar. The FTC has proposed a new bill that Quixtar outlines in their website. The bill clearly is aimed to stop most of the ways in which Quixtar operates. The bill declares that there are "Business opportunity frauds," that seek to "look like ...health and nutrition... cosmetics..." The bill also slams down on Quixtars method of trying to get people involved before they can make an educated decision. Seven people in each Chapter will be required to furbish actual paychecks. One weeks time will be required before a person can be initiated. There are also several other restrictions that will be given to multi-level marketing companies under the new bill.
  • It is also interesting to note here that Quixtar sends new recruits home to look only at <thisbiznow.com> A website owned by Quixtar, with the Mayor of a town: ADA valley, speaking. ADA valley is run By ALTICOR, the parent company of Quixtar. All the factories there are owned by Alticor. This is of particular interest since 1) Quixtar claims that they make no products of thier own "like Walmart," and 2) it is not direct buying but multi-level buying, where the prices go up as the products go down, just like traditional retail, possibly worse. 28 day supply of basic multi-vitamins cost over $60 plus shipping and handling. Quixtar claims that the Vitamins are all home-grown, and thus higher quality. However, they fail the big test of high quality vitamins which are about half the cost of Quixtar brand, that is the extracts are not standardized. Furthermore, a vitamin x, denotes a particular chemical compound, with a particular structure that is always the same. Their vitamins are neither mehtylated nor estherified. Again, who is misinforming? Typically when a government agency looks into a company's behaviour they are on the verge of being illegal or revolution. But what kind of revolution seeks to make everyone pay more for 'stuff they already buy anyway' If the entire world succumbed, then we would have suckered ourselves into a sales-oriented communism, where nothing gets done, because everyone is only concerned with how much they could have, and not actually working to get it.
  • It seems that in the end Quixtar is selling a beautiful product. One that never gets old. One that can always be sold. We shall call it greed. They wrap it up, and give it the name 'if only' Greed and a plan for how to accomplish greedy indulgence will always sell, whether it is noble and helpful or not. The government should stay out of it though. If we can buy stuff for love, like thank you for being there for me cards; then, we should be able to buy greed at Quixtar.com, peanut butter and Zenso tea that if I just buy more, I will get rich. Someone show me honestly, how, that works in the long run, and I will go eagle every month for the rest of my life, and buy all kinds of greedy junk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.186.203.234 (talk • contribs).
70.186.203.234, don't be ridiculous. The only way to make money in Quixtar is by selling stuff at wholesale or retail. If you think you get rich by buying stuff then you need to have the business model explained a little better. --Insider201283 00:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FTC Letter

This is a scan of a faxed response from the FTC to a letter from the Direct Selling Association. As such it is a primary source document. Independent patriot keeps deleting the text and source document apparently for no other reason than he doesn't like where the PDF file is hosted. --Insider201283 00:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I found it at another website as well, one devoted to direct marketing. However since it doesn't mention Quixtar it's use here may be original research. It's always dangerous to use primary sources and draw conclusions from them. -Will Beback · † · 03:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Huh? There is no conclusions drawn, the letter is clear. --Insider201283 05:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the conclusion I referred to:
  • In other words, Amway and Quixtar members are to be considered legitimate end users of their products, and since no money is earned for recruiting new people into the company, Quixtar is not a pyramid scheme.
Since the letter doesn't mention Amway or Quixtar, we are drawing a conclusion about what the FTC letter means and how that applies to the subject. -Will Beback · † · 06:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you disputing that Quixtar uses a multi-level compensation plan? --Insider201283 07:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
No. -Will Beback · † · 09:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Will about the danger of drawing a conclusion and is why I am asking for the original source to see what context this letter was published in. This letter does not mention Quixtar and does not directly reference the Quixtar compensation plan. The only reason I question the site it is linked too is because I know Insider's site is not where it is originally published and if this letter is going to be allowed (as it appears to have nothing to do directly with Quixtar) I would think it should be linked to where it is originally published. Also, it brings into question if Insider as the site owner even has permission to publish this letter on his site. Independent patriot 04:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine, so obviously you agree we should rewrite the entire Controversy section to only cover sourced non-POV info? The FTC part goes, it's about Amway, not Quixtar. The Dateline part can stay, it was about Quixtar. Would you be willing to write a sourced summary of the Dateline segment to replace the current controversy section? I'll add something about Quixtar's response and we can go from there. Agreed? --Insider201283 05:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the controversy section needs to be rewritten. The FTC ruling however I believe needs to stay since it is what is referred to as the precedent for Quixtar being a legal MLM. The wording needs to be redone to take away the critical slant. I will write the sourced summary of the Dateline episode. I still stand however that the letter you have sourced needs to go. It has nothing to do with Quixtar directly and as Will has stated, you have drawn a conclusion that is not clear in the letter. You agree to that and then we can most certainly go from there. Independent patriot 06:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Text should not be deleted while under dispute, please replace it and mark it as disputed. I have drawn no conclusions at all. The FTC quote is clear about multi-level compensation plans and Quixtar is a multi-level compensation plan. Are you seriously claiming that Quixtar does not operated under a multi-level compensation plan? --Insider201283 06:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If it is so clear then we can let readers draw the conclusion for themselves. See also my repsonse to you above. -Will Beback · † · 07:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Reworded. --Insider201283 07:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It still draws a conclusion:
  • Thus, the amount of products consumed by Amway and Quixtar members plays no part in determining whether Amway and Quixtar are pyramids. Since no money is earned for recruiting new people into the company, Quixtar is not an illegal pyramid scheme.
That is not functionally different than what was there before. The best way I can see to use this letter would be to say something like:
  • Some have charged that Quixtar is a pyramid scheme. However the FTC says...
And leave it at that. No words like "thus", "in other words", "since", "therefore" etc. -Will Beback · † · 07:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't exactly call that "original research" Will or drawing a conclusion. It's simply paraphrasing. But let's wait for Independent Patriots rewrite of the Dateline section and then I'll add the response. The FTC letter is a response to the entire unsourced POV section so there's a good chance it won't even be relevant. Please leave as is until then. --Insider201283 07:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Since the letter doesn't mention Quixtar or Amway, I don't see how you can call it paraphrasing. That portion of the text should be removed. -Will Beback · † · 09:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
To quote from dictionary.com - paraphrase - to render the meaning of in a technical paper for lay readers.. It says "multi-level compensation plans" a somewhat technical term that includes Amway and Quixtar. Unless you dispute that the Amway and Quixtar are covered under the term "multi-level compensation plans" then paraphrase is exactly what it is. --Insider201283 09:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

<-- Then another appropriate wording would be to write that the FTC has said that properly structured "multi-level compensation plans" are not pyramids. The FTC didn't say that Quixtar is not a pyramid, and it would be incorrect to put those words their mouth. -Will Beback · † · 09:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

problem solved, unsourced POV and sourced response removed --Insider201283 10:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Insider, you were the one who wanted the rewrite of the sections. It seems though what you want is a section that reads how only you want it to read. The litigation does not say anything about the FTC saying IBOs were making exaggerated claims which was a find in that litigation. Also removing the text about the tools from the Dateline segment wrong. They were clearly discussing tools and income and it should be included since that is where the major controversy is. I made sure to include that Quixtar requires signatures of forms for this stuff to be disclosed. Having a rewrite done to make sure an article is fair and covers all bases does not mean it needs to read how you like it. Independent patriot 20:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability and facts. What you just added, while much better worded, has ZERO sourcing. I suggested you rewrite the section with sourcing and you did no such thing. What you added is currently POV stuff and as such is unacceptable. Get some WP:RS acceptable sources and we'll talk about it. I'm sure there is some out there. Until then you can't just add your opinion. --Insider201283 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, though no longer important, FTC correspondence, as a government agency, are public domain, and Wikipedia guidelines also state that it is not the job of normal users to police copyright. --Insider201283 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I reworded what had been up there for quite sometime and was never deleted for lack of sources. None of what I wrote is my POV. If you don't like it reworded then put up what was there before, and was accepted. This page does not conform to what you like to be written. What I rewrote states the argument of each side and I think gives equal billing to the facts. Show me what I wrote that is not a fact. Independent patriot 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia standard is verifiability not fact. Without sources it can't be verified. The dateline show actually mentions what you're talking about, so all you really needed to do was reword to that affect. I've done it for you. Happy now? :-) --Insider201283 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
So one can only wonder if you are really all about just getting the correct information out there you didn't rewrite it that way the first time and instead you just deleted it. If you can't put your bias aside perhaps you should not edit. Independent patriot 02:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the information is particularly relevant or well sourced. In my view the Dateline episode is fatally biased and poorly sourced, but I frankly aren't going to bother challenging it. I'm certainly not going to go to the trouble of tracking sources and rewriting the section. Some minor changes to be made re your latest edits, but we're apparently getting somewhere. --Insider201283 02:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
PS I legitimately missed the part in the dateline transcript about declining to be interviewed and tools income "unavailable". That's because I searched for "unavailable", which you had put in quotes. The actual term used was "not available". --Insider201283 02:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The same can be said for much of what Quixtar and the motivational organization put out. I also can't help but wonder just how familiar you are with the Dateline episode since you missed a well-known fact that the people they were talking about declined to address the allegations of Dateline's investigation. Independent patriot 23:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Surprisingly enough I don't spend my weekends watching it, no. --Insider201283 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr.Phil

Dr Phil was brought in to talk to Quixtar leaders, something he initially was not interested in doing. He, like most folk, had a complete misunderstanding of the whole industry. After tours and meeting folk he gave spoke at QuixtarLive and this endorsement. Later he contracted Access Business Group, a sister company of Quixtar to manufacture the "shape-up" products for his company CSA Nutraceuticals. I'm not sure how, but CSA Nutraceuticals was somehow linked to The Allan James Group. The Allan James Group was recently purchased by Alticor subsidiary Interleukin Genetics, thus Alticor became party to the settlement. Dr Phil's endorsement of Quixtar precedes the business relationship.--Insider201283 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The settlement to the class action suit against Dr. Phil was a major news story covered by dozens of papers (verifiable). It's revelent to his endorement and should not have been deleted. Steve8675309 15:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, if his endorsement of Quixtar is in here any sourced story about his relationship with the company should be included as well. Independent patriot 22:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
What do we mean by "sister company"? Are they owned by the same corporate parent? Could we clarify the connection in the text? -Will Beback · † · 22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Alticor owns Quixtar, Amway, Access Business Group, Interleukin Genetics and some other companies. Access Business Group made the products for CSA Nutraceuticals, Dr Phil's company. Looks like Alan James Group bought CSA Nutraceuticals, and later Interleukin bought Alan James Group, which is when Alticor (nothing to do with Quixtar) became a party to the court settlement. The Quixtar endorsement (a) precedes the business arrangement by quite some time and (b) has nothing to do with Quixtar per se. If the info is going to be included it needs to be significantly reworded. I'll look it doing this now. --Insider201283 11:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Footnotes - "Footnotes are sometimes useful for relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail." I think it is very clear that the explanation of McGraws later business dealings with A Quixtar sister company "distracts from the main point" which is his endorsement of Quixyar. I think it's fair enough to include the fact he later has business dealings with the company, but (a) given it happens after the endorsement and (b) it happens with another company altogether, albeit related, it does not belong in the main body of the article. --Insider201283 09:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The prior version had a bunch of text in the references section. That doesn't conform to anyone's style, including wiki's [Wikipedia:Citing sources]. I moved it back to the main article and replaced the sentence about the settlement with a simple quote from the lawsuit reference. I did this because the prior sentence contained a blatant advertisement for Quixtar IBOs ("marketed exclusively by Quixtar IBOs in the United States"!) [Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion].
It was original as a footnote, which is as per Wikipedia:Footnotes. That was then changed to references and then someone added references. If the text is to be included I think it should be maintained as a footnote. --Insider201283 19:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
For now, I kept the text about Access Business Group, Interleukin Genetics, CSA Nutraceuticals, Alan James Group, and Alticor. But nothing in the reference provided links CSA to anyone other than Quixtar. I propose that this text be deleted unless someone can reference a link between these companies (Access Business Group, Interleukin Genetics, and Alan James Group) and McGraw. Discussion?
Steve8675309 16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The provided reference does not provide a link to Quixtar, it provides a link to Alticor, Quixtar's parent company. I don't see this whole lawsuit discussion has that much relevance to Quixtar, given (a) the endorsement happened before ShapeUp was launched and (b) the connection to Quixtar is somewhat disjointed -> ShapeUp was made by a company (Access) that is owned by a company (Alticor) which owns another company (Nutrilite) whose products are marketed by another company owned by Alticor (Quixtar). --Insider201283 19:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../q/u/i/Talk%7EQuixtar_9f06.html"