| Revision as of 02:40, 10 June 2009 editCryptic C62 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,561 edits →Cold fusion mediation: still on board?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:28, 6 May 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,376,157 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Hipocrite/05/2024. (BOT)Tag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | {{Archive box|image=] | ||
| <div style="background-color: #BBDDFF; border: #4169E1 1px solid; margin: 2em 0 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: middle;"> | |||
| ]Hello, {{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}|1}}. Your no-talkback edit notice is constantly ignored.{{facepalm}}<br /> | |||
| {{No talkback}} | |||
| I do check my Misplaced Pages-related email, to those who ask. I don't typically do what emailers want. | |||
| <span class="plainlinks" style="font-size: 88%; font-weight: normal;"> You will every time by removing the {{tl|Talkback}} or {{tl|Tb}} template. They will never stop. </span></div> | |||
| ⚫ | {{Archive box|image=]|auto=no | ||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | ||
| |archiveprefix=User talk:Hipocrite/ | |archiveprefix=User talk:Hipocrite/ | ||
| |format=m/Y | |format=m/Y | ||
| |age= |
|age=72 | ||
| |index=yes | |index=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Unbecoming? == | |||
| For the fact he was paid (which isn't against policy) or that he released it? I just would like to get where you're coming from. Like, if someone paid you or I $100 to draft up an entry level article that was 100% compliant with ], ], ], and then dropped it in, releasing it under GFDL... whats the harm? The paid author or payee has no control over the page at that point. It's ours, and we get +1 compliant article. If the page isn't compliant with our stuff, and gets ripped to shreds or deleted via CSD or AFD... no skin off our back, but maybe off the paid author's, which isn't our problem or concern, especially legally. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I find the paid editing to be a contradiction to our goal of creating an encyclopedia that people will use (as opposed to an encyclopedia people will spam,) but the reason that his editing is unbecoming an encyclopedia is that his target articles are all NN-BIO. If we know he's being paid (we do) and we know he's writing crap (we do), he's not a net benefit. It's not like he's trolling by writing articles about obviously notable things that he was not paid to do (like some other paid editors may have done,) but rather, writing bad spam for people who want to make money fast. No thanks. ] (]) 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Well, looking at his pages... | |||
| * ], borderline I guess, but I know nothing about the subject matter. It looks like worst case is we get a robust section on it if merged to the other page. | |||
| * ] seems to be notable. I was surprised he even included a criticism/controversy section on this one. | |||
| * The Kegel one petrosiannii actually redirected , which was surprising. | |||
| * ] appears notable. | |||
| * ] appears notable. | |||
| * ] is a landmark, and his adds there seem fine, that's the kind of information that gradually fills up any detailed article. | |||
| * ] was filed by me. | |||
| So far, he's 6 out of 7 here. | |||
| I keep wondering if everyone is looking at this guy like Kohs, who on some pages like ] got (admitted to by Jimbo later) screwed over, and we even pissed all over the GFDL by at least one admin there nearly just to spite the guy. Kohs hasn't helped by basically needling everyone in sight whenever he could, but now its made what feels like a stigma come up about this. I honestly could care less why someone adds free content, since they have zero recourse over it once it's released, more than anyone else does. | |||
| To be honest, if one of our Content Writers were offered $1000 to write up a decent article on a notable business (say, a restaurant) that was ], ], ], ], ], and etc. compliant, dropped it, and then didn't touch it again, just because the restaurant wanted the placement and "Googlejuice", I think the Content Writer would be stupid to pass it up because/if: | |||
| # Misplaced Pages scores a new quality article | |||
| # Readers get the benefit of a new quality article | |||
| # Who doesn't need +$1000 | |||
| # Like any other article, ] is subject to all the rules afterward | |||
| I just keep looking for something bad in this current situation (I saw the sockpuppetry thing) but that aside, content-wise, I'm not seeing it yet. What am I missing? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 16:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I saw your cleanup on the Gulick & Mincher pages--stuff like that, for someone new, that's to be expected. I just wanted to clear that up. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 16:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * ] - his edits were nothing more than | |||
| * ] is only notable because AFD is infested with keepfanatics. He lacks any real notability | |||
| * The Kegel redirect was nothing more than him avoiding the "THIS ARTICLE IS SHITTY MC SHITTERSON" tags at the top. | |||
| * ] is totally NN. Again, the broken "KEEP ALL PEOPLE MENTIONED ANYWHERE" of AFD makes it unnassailable, but not good. | |||
| * ] and ] are fine and I wish they hadn't paid some retard to write them. Instead, they could contact me on my talk page and I'd have done it for free. ] (]) 16:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll go through them more tonight, but Gulick, really, NN?? , all , and an Academy Award nomination? All that coasts clean past ]... <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 16:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: NN Music video producer. When it's the target of infantile vandalism I'm going to point and laugh. Loudly. There are 110 grammys awarded per year. ] (]) 16:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==David Stack== | |||
| *Would you take another look at the ] article and possibly change your ] !vote? ty. --] (]) 00:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| This AfD debate which you participated in, with 9 arguments in favor of deletion and 4 in favor of retention, was just closed by an admin as '''keep.''' I've opened a DRV on the matter here .] (]) 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Cold fusion mediation == | |||
| I have been asked to mediate the content dispute regarding ]. I have set up a separate page for this mediation ''']'''. You have been identified as one of the involved parties. Please read through the material I have presented there. Thank you. --'''] · ]''' 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I have been informed that you have been banned from ] and its talk page. I noticed that you have not commented at the mediation page in several days. Perhaps you assumed that the ban covered the mediation page. Not true. WMC confirmed this. You are fully allowed (and encouraged) to participate. We will begin the actual mediation process in the next few days. --'''] · ]''' 02:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == hey == | |||
| See ], in case you start editing the talk page without noticing. --] (]) 11:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Misplaced Pages article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at ] on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--] (]) 23:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:28, 6 May 2024
Facepalm This user has opted out of talkbacks
I do check my Misplaced Pages-related email, to those who ask. I don't typically do what emailers want.
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |