Talk:Amsoil/Archive 1

ARCHIVE 1

Edit Protect Requests

{{editprotected}} Section: Controversy

Current Text: "It only allows two of its products to be tested and certified"
- New Text: "The company offers one product that is tested and certified"
  - Reason: As per 'Founders Intent' link and discussion below, company offers "XL" as its API certified product line.

REF:"Our XL-7500 oils are (for) the retail oil change market, ... because of warranty concerns the customers in this market require API-certified oils."[1]

Not done This edit request appears to present a POV - please establish consensus for it on this page. Happy‑melon 19:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? It seems to be very straightforward, The company offers 1 product that has been certified.

It is the very essence of the controversy surrounding the company - it does not allow it's oil to be tested by outside entities. This is unusual and controversial in the oil industry, where API, ACEA, GM, Volvo, MB, BMW, Ford, etc, certification is the standard.

Please help by describing how the factual recounting of a controversy becomes a POV. 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposed revision, in addition to being insufficiently sourced, represents a complete shift in the tone of the sentence. "Amsoil only allows two of its products to be tested..." has a clear negative viewpoint - this is probably appropriate if sources are generally critical of its policy. The change to "Amsoil allows one of its products to be tested..." suggests the precise opposite - in tone and presentation it is much more positive, which may not be appropriate if the public opinion on Amsoil's position is not so approving. It is not my place as an admin to decide whether or not this change is appropriate, that is for the community to determine - hence the request for more consensus. Essentially, I am saying that, while the change may not necessarily be inappropriate, it appears to to me, and so I would like to see some more opinions from editors better versed in the subject before making a change. Happy‑melon 22:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, there is a change in tone. I don't believe that the difference between "allows" and "offers one" is significant enough to become a true POV issue, but "Amsoil allows one of its products to be tested..." may actually better represent the controversy. It both points to the singular and restrictive nature of Amsoil's controversial reluctance to certify their products and still correctly illustrates the proprietary business "choice" that Amsoil has made.

This would then become:

- New Text: "The company allows one of it's products to be tested and certified"

In the same spirit, and perhaps just a touch better:

- New Text: "The company offers one of it's products as tested and certified"

Not Opposed to either text. 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement?

This article reads like a press release from Amsoil. Contrast this article with Royal Purple, Castrol, Pennzoil, etc. Poitin 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Poitin[reply]

It sounds too good to be true, but it isn't. I have used these products for a while now and have never had anything bad to say about AMSOIL.

The quality of Amsoil's products, good or bad, is not what is being called into question. The problem is that the article utterly lacks neutrality. I have read corporate pronouncements with less bias! Poitin 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Poitin[reply]

Accuracy of Amsoil claims

I think AMS oil has a very agressive marketing department. What I have noticed is that most synthetic oil review articles on the net always favor AMS oil. I have a suspicion that the AMSOIL marketing dept is behind most of these "comparisions". This article itself seems like it was written by somone at AMSOIL itself. I have done some research and found that the claims made by AMSOIL are not all true. I will go ahead and take away the claims section.

Gabrielzorz 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's inaccurate in the article? It seems to me that this article is stating the facts. The facts are that the other companies that you mentioned cannot claim the "firsts" that are claimed in this AMSOIL article nor can they claim the breath of product offering of AMSOIL. If you don't believe that they can claim the "firsts", ask the United States Patent and Trademark Office"--they granted AMSOIL a Registered Trademark for the phrase "The First In Synthetics".

So, since the other companies can't make the innovation claims or offer the breadth of products that AMSOIL does , does that mean that they should be removed from the AMSOIL article? That doesn't seem fair to AMSOIL.

The facts are that AMSOIL is an innovator and has the largest synthetic product offering, period. Those are the facts, is not the purpose for these articles to present the facts? If so, it would be hard to write an article that presents the facts without it seeming to promote AMSOIL. The facts themselves promote AMSOIL, it's not the writer or the article being impartial. 69.244.0.219 18:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relevance of posting Amsoils U.S. commercial terms (i.e. Preferred Customer pricing)?

It's probably relevant because Amsoil is a MLM, so there is that unique element when compared to articles about other companies. I think it's noteworthy and definitely not POV. Eli lilly 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

advertising? astroturfing?

This article is a huge mess, i think it needs to be rewritten from scratch to fully conform with wikipedia policies. Looking at it right now i think i should have spent 10 extra minutes looking for the press release the bulk of the text is lifted from, and add a copyvio notice as well.

It isn't a press release. The source is original. sonicspike

It is almost impossible to find any information about Amsoil that isn't from a source that's also selling it. The joys of MLM. This article definitely needs some help, but I know of no sources for real, NPOV information. Jimduchek (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the editors?

Why don't you people sign your posts? Scared we might find out who you are? I can tell that the anti-Amsoilers are writing most of this stuff. At least cite your allegations with sources.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a chip on your shoulder - and an extraordinarily aggressive posture to take over a bland Wiki entry. You have removed factual references to the testing regimes of specific manufacturers and have generally slanted this article towards an advertorial for a commercial product built upon press releases.

Please show which refs I removed. I added references and rewrote the section to improve it.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between this non-neutral editing and your full frontal assault on the character of those who are attempting to contribute I will strongly suggest that you have a non-neutral point of view. As a previous editor has pointed out this should read no differently than the entrys for Royal Purple, Castrol, Pennzoil or any of the other independent oil marketing companies out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.67.10 (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just a coincidence or did you just choose to come here to threaten "Scared we might find out who you are?" and attack "I can tell that the anti-Amsoilers are writing most of this stuff." wiki editors less than 24 hours after the following was posted on the internet?

"Nice one with Wilki ! It does indeed show how dangerous such a useful tool can be. ... I do give thanks for bringing this perversion of Wilki's excellent system to my attention. It will be with the Amsoil CEO tomorrow and I'm sure will be acted upon."

I also notice that you are an avid car fanatic - would you also happen to be an Amsoil dealer? Is it possible that you possess a non neutral point of view?

Is there anything relevant about your perspective on the subject to be found here?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+Founders+Intent%22+amsoil&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Vtd&filter=0

"AUTOMOBILE chat - SOCIETY (no hostility :) - Perspectives by The Founders Intent Go to last Post .... oil and oil filter that is good for 25000 miles or 1 year, 1, 330, Amsoil User, Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 08:22 pm ... www.perspectives.com/forums/view_forum.php?id=55&sort_by=views - 104k -"

History

It's looks like this section is a direct cut and paste from the Amsoil website. I don't believe this is proper Wiki writing style.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

We're not going to remove cited information. If you want to add something or correct uncited information that's fine. BTW, getting API certification costs money, so let's not hide the facts. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The industry standard is to have products certified by independent organizations and engine manufacturers as fit for specific applications. It is this very failure to meet the minimum standards for certification that is itself notable. I also fail to see the relevance of "costs money" in an entry about a company marketing oil and it's relation to industry standards, norms and practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.56.244 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Costs money and chemically-based performance limits are at the heart of Amsoil's reason for not obtaining licenses. This in no way proves that Amsoil products do not meet API minimum performance standards. Performance and licensing are separate issues, which I encourage you to pursue. Until then, you cannot remove my text which is supported by references.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, get yourself a proper user account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Founders Intent (talk • contribs) 17:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

♠ Maybe this section should be started over from scratch. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to share your proposal. Here is one to amend the similar paragraph in the 'Controversy' section::

Amsoil does not submit any of its products for ACEA certification. It offers one of its products as tested and certified by the American Petroleum Institute (API), these are designed for the quick change oil industry because of liability issues with uncertified oils; "Our XL-7500 oils are (for) the retail oil change market, ... because of warranty concerns the customers in this market require API-certified oils."[2][3] Amsoil does not submit any of it's products for testing and approval by any of the major vehicle manufacturers.

The supporting reference is an Amsoil corporate advertisement from their website - I believe that this can be replaced by a secondary source as per the Administrators recommendation above. 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

- REGARDING: Edit of 18:12, 11 March 2008 The Founders Intent (4,682 bytes) (→Controversy: reference is unduly self-serving; removed unsourced material)

Please explain how the reference is self serving - but the quote still stands? I'm a bit confused at what your trying to say here.

Also why do you remove some unsourced material but leave and attach "Citation Needed" tags to other material? What standard are you applying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.56.244 (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Why do you have multiple links to Amsoil's press releases to their position statements on new car warranty's? Where is here any reference at all to new car warranty's? What possible relevance to the encyclopedia entry for Amsoil does this have?

Has Wikipedia become an advertising and press release outlet for Amsoil?

Why do you continue to capitalize Amsoil as AMSOIL throughout the encyclopedia entry?

♠ Where? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you delete factual references and links to industry certifications, standards and norms?

If, you say, "performance and licensing are separate issues" Why do you delete factual references and links to industry certification? And you have now pronounced this entry locked until I, or presumably any other editor, have "pursued" the separate issues of performance and licensing?

Nonsense. This is an entry about a corporation, it does not and cannot purport to measure the "performance" of a company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.56.244 (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

♠ Have you not also made an equal number of reversions?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 20:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I made numerous individual contributions which were reverted by you wholesale. 20:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A change, be it the addition of content or the correction of typo's is not a reversion. This is an example of you simply wiping out a number of contributions 'en masse':

"7 March 2008 The Founders Intent (5,065 bytes) (Reverted (NINE) edits ... to last version by The Founders Intent)"

Your inability to work from a neutral point of view and desire for complete editorial control is not in the best interest of this particular Wiki entry. 22:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

♠ Is that why you clumped all your entries together so you could cry foul? You knew that section was in dispute, yet you made all you changes simultaneously to include that section. What I wrote I supported with references, and you deleted them at least twice. You don't do that, you either debate my references or ask for new ones. You don't decide it's a press release and completely delete my entries. How am I not being neutral, I supported my entries with references? You should have read what was there before I edited that section, there were no references. I couldn't even find the quote anywhere, but I was going to try and work that out. No, with regard to that section you are wrong in your approach to me and the article. Try signing your comments, huh? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst others, you have made the following edits:

Added link to Amsoil marketing press release "Worried over Warranty's?" YES, a reference
Added link to Amsoil Marketing press release "Warranty's and Amsoil" YES, a reference
Added link to Amsoil advertising on Amsoil site for Amsoil produced comparisons to other products. YES, a reference
Changed the factual statement that Amsoil "does (not) test " to the editorial comment "only pays to"
Added link to Amsoil advertising on it's website for Amsoil XL-7500. YES, addresses the premise that Amsoil doesn't API license any products.*Changed numerous references to fully capitalize the word Amsoil, following the companies advertising style, to AMSOIL. NO
Deleted the statement, "Amsoil does not submit any of it's products for testing and approval by any of the major vehicle manufacturers." YES, no reference provided.
Added a plug for Amsoil's Altrum by listing trade names in place of product category's. For one item, "Pure Power Cleaning", you apparently just listed the advertising slogan. A Google check indicates it may not even be Altrum's trade name:

NO

You softened the direct and factual phrase "wholly owns and manages" to "also has" in relation to the corporations business operations and activities. NO

You also began your efforts here by threatening, "Scared we might find out who you are?" and attacking without foundation wiki editors, "I can tell that the anti-Amsoilers are writing most of this stuff." This does not demonstrate a "good faith" effort on your part. Neither does editing in anonimity

You have also failed to respond to any of the debate in two of the sections above that genuinely call into question your NPOV, and any possible commercial or conflict of interest you may have in the corporation or it's network and products.17:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC) You have failed to register an account.

♠ I used links to press releases because it shows Amsoil policies or information written in their own words. I wouldn't want to read a link that says, "Amsoil's policies say ...." over an official Amsoil document. The press releases were used as references, because they are the best thing I could find and were obviously not intended to advertise for Amsoil. The previous version of the section made claims without refs, so I tried to rewrite it more correctly with references. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. If my version of the Controversy section reads like an advertisement, which specific statements support the allegation. I think the way I wrote the section is as neutral as one can be. Now, regarding identity it is common practice on Wikipedia to sign one's comments and have a registered account. You continue to speak from an IP address and I've said all I need to say about this, so as far as I'm concerned this debate is now closed. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basing a Wiki entry upon advertising is not considered "best practices". If all you've done is take copyrighted material and rewritten it -then linked to it in support of your entry- you need to seriously reconsider your declaration: "I think the way I wrote the section is as neutral as one can be."

You state that you did not change the phrase, ""wholly owns and manages" to "also has".
- Please check your edit of: 16:46, 7 March 2008
You state that you did not "Change(d) numerous references to fully capitalize the word Amsoil, following the companies advertising style, to AMSOIL."
- Please check your edit of: 16:46, 7 March 2008 & 17:37, 7 March 2008
You state that you did not include product names and taglines.
- Please check your edit of: 16:46, 7 March 2008 & 17:37, 7 March 2008
You state that you added the link to Amsoil advertising on it's website for Amsoil XL-7500, because, "addresses the premise that Amsoil doesn't API license any products"
- The entry never stated that. It stated that Amsoil allows two of its products to be tested and certified by the API.

Additionally, using press releases and advertising is not "Neutral Point of View." Really, it just isn't.

Mostly though you continue to point to the Red Herrings in the room and ignore and evade the direct questions regarding your non-neutral point of view and any potential conflicts of interest.20:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

- - Founders Intent,

Why in the world would you ever link to an inducement for Amsoil's MLM program?[3] That's a PURE commercial plug - To even have considered it a helpful "neutral" addition to an encyclopedia is beyond comprehension. 17:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get the definitions of their business accounts (i.e., Commercial, Retail store, etc)? Wouldn't an Amsoil document provide that best? What are you worried about? Where would you get their slogan; off a commercial? I didn't write the article, I'm just trying to improve it by adding references that are authoritative for the given fact. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is never acceptable, in an entry about a company's business, to prove that they are in business by trying to sell their products through the Wikipedia entry. 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.56.244 (talk)

I don't know what you're talking about. Who is trying to sell Amsoil in the article? Certainly not me, I'm just trying to find support for the existing text in the article. This article has an amazing amount of unsubstantiated content. Some of it supported by you, and you refuse to provide references, and delete my tags to require that some be added. This must be your personal article, and you feel total ownership over it. If you can't provide references for your content, then you shouldn't be adding it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a number of empty, baseless and unsupported general charges throughout this attempt to find consensus - something you have `not lifted a finger to do. You also made this statement:

"I might just leave the article alone for a while even after the protection is removed, that might help. Thanks.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 19:04, 8 March 2008 "

That was after an administrator said the following:

"Wikipedia prefers reliable secondary sources to primary sources. I'd recommend doing some research further afield of Amsoil's own website or press releases, especially for the controversy section. Naturally also use the talkpage to discuss, and perhaps work on the controversy section on the talkpage until you reach a mutually agreeable solution."

You made no attempt whatsoever to use this page to discuss and work on this topic. Instead, and contrary to your pledge to help by 'leaving this alone' you jumped in less than an hour after the page protection was lifted (protection put in place due to your over 1 dozen reverts in a day) with no community discussion and inserted commercial advertising. In specific rebuttal to your general charge against me I'll direct you to the rest of my comments on this page - including my recent attempts at consensus in the Controversey:Talk section above, including it's supporting references. Myself, and the community, continue to implore you to work for consensus. But it appears that you would rather evade, obfuscate and just generally throw a spanner in the works. 18:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

When are you going to have a legitimate account? Hmmm? Who is the community you speak of; just more IP accounts? It's only been you and me, and you haven't added the first reference since I started editing here. You have not added a reference to any part of the article marked as questionable. I explained my rationale for what I have added, but you have not. What have you done to improve this article with facts and references? Please point them out to me and the community. My references, poor or not, have been continually removed. Are you against references? If you don't like my references, then please REPLACE them with your own; but do not leave the article unreferenced. Please. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The community I spoke of was quoted just above. It included Administrator "Riana" and her admonishment:

... use the talkpage to discuss, and perhaps work on the controversy section on the talkpage until you reach a mutually agreeable solution.

It also includes Administrator "Happy Melon":

... whether or not this change is appropriate, that is for the community to determine - hence the request for more consensus. ... I would like to see some more opinions from editors ... before making a change.

My status as an IP editor is both legitimate and a complete Red-Herring. I have proposed my changes to the controversy section and offered a reference. It is contained here on this discussion page and is awaiting community discussion and consensus.

Your use of an advertisement for business as "proof" is ridiculous - you are also growing increasingly TROLL LIKE. I have responded in detail to you numerous times and added fully formed thoughts, questions and support to my writing here - Only to be continually evaded on EVERY POINT. AND to have you ignore ALL attempts at arriving at any consensus. FOLLOWED by CHILDISH RED-HERRING questions usually of the most general and unsupported kind.

Please engage the subject here and be forthright, your lack of substance is rapidly becoming old. 19:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional notes on the User "The Founders Intent". His history and habits as a Troll.

Having refuted nearly every single sentence that you've put down, clearly and impeccably referenced, I might as well do the same for your last empty charges:

"you haven't added the first reference since I started editing here. You have not added a reference to any part of the article marked as questionable."

Here, sir, is just one: [4], a quick check here:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amsoil&diff=196558669&oldid=196033398

shows it to have been added both after you began to edit AND to the section marked questionable in direct response to you having applied a "fact" 'citation needed' tag to it...

♠And you have the nerve to question my references after using this? You use a dealer site. Hypocrite.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)♠[reply]

But, as a Troll, it's not likely you care. Here is evidence of previous Trolling and your honored place in the "2007 Troll Olympics" :[5]

And your lack of collegiality on this entry seem to be entirely consistent with your actions here: [6] A style built upon ignorance, a tin-ear for the community and a complete and utter lack of any effort to find consensus.

And then to top off everything we have this gem of Hypocrisy & Deceit:

"I understand your point on 3RR (3 Revert Rule), and didn't know the rule."[7] Yet, you do know the rule, and profess to be a member here, where ONE of just 4 rules is to not engage in 3RR: The Wiki Harmonious Editing Club[8]:

Club members are expected to abide by certain guidelines:

Members should help resolve any disputes they come across during their time here
Members should allow themselves only one revert, rather than three, during a content dispute
Avoid edit wars by discussing obviously controversial changes on a talk page.
Be bold (not reckless) in editing

And let's not forget you may have a financial stake in the product, and may have in fact been recorded shilling for it (this was brought up a week ago on this page with no response from you):

AUTOMOBILE chat - SOCIETY - Perspectives by The Founders Intent Go to last Post .... oil and oil filter that is good for 25000 miles or 1 year, 1, 330, Amsoil User, Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 08:22 pm ... www.perspectives.com/forums/view_forum.php?id=55&sort_by=views - 104k -

Regrettably, of all your posts that Google has record of, this post alone is no longer accessible and has been deleted from the site www.perspectives.com.

PS: I have never engaged in such an extended debate on Wiki that this has been an issue - but just for the record I am the editor using the IP address ending in .244, my IP has reset. I trust my writing style is distinct enough that this would be obvious. 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.133.214 (talk • contribs) 18:29-21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I am responding to a third opinion request which drew no response from project volunteers during the past week.

The Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is an effective forum for airing and addressing issues involving compliance with the conflict of interest guideline. If the dispute here has not yet been resolved, posting on that noticeboard may yield better results. — Athaenara ✉ 02:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with this article

♠Okay I'm done with this article, you write whatever you like. Here are some revisions you can look at if you like.

As can be seen, I was trying to make the article better and provide references of some sort, which is better than none. I also didn't capitalize Amsoil as was alleged. Mr 244 if you have anymore problems with this article, talk to the people below, if you can find them. They have usernames just like yours. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

75.56.56.244
75.57.67.10
76.30.130.242
74.5.11.251♠

Response

- You seemed to have conveniently missed this one, which was specifically referenced above in the preceding discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amsoil&diff=196570161&oldid=196566308

This was only one of two distinct examples in which you capitalized the company's name following it's advertising style. Please do not continue to say things which are so demonstrably untrue, it becomes tedious.

As to your continuing, but empty attack, IP editors are an accepted and standard practice at Wiki. But it's likely you know that - just as you already knew about the 3RR rule and then lied about your ignorance. You'll find that those of us that employ the practice of editing from an IP are quite happy to allow our contributions to stand on their merits - further there has been no claim here that there exists more than 1 IP editor in this discussion, indeed if you would have taken the time to have read or engaged in the discussion here you will see that just a few lines above your entry I have clearly identified myself and tied the IP addresses together.

You have chosen to troll and lie and ignore all attempts to reach consensus. The record is clear. I have no doubt that any future editors will read the record in it's entirety and draw their own conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.131.174 (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no doubt.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]