Talk:Break.com: Difference between revisions
HagermanBot (talk | contribs) m Mtwang didn't sign: "lots of spurious uncited sources - please remove" |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
- This being because clips have made the mainpage with very few visits and low ranking. |
- This being because clips have made the mainpage with very few visits and low ranking. |
||
+ Citation? |
+ Citation? |
||
-Apart from the sponsored adult content, Break.com is a target of spamming from camsites and others. It can take several hours for staff to remove this content, allowing children who access the site to see it. |
|||
+ Citation? Does it take several hours to remove? |
|||
All for balanced and factional, but don't understand how this entry can be populated with all accustaions and propoganda. That doesn't seem right, <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Mtwang|Mtwang]] ([[User talk:Mtwang|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mtwang|contribs]]) 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
All for balanced and factional, but don't understand how this entry can be populated with all accustaions and propoganda. That doesn't seem right, <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Mtwang|Mtwang]] ([[User talk:Mtwang|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mtwang|contribs]]) 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
||
Revision as of 19:08, 5 April 2007
Great website
- good edit, i wanted to include something about it, wawsnt sure whats teh right way to do it. -72.59.148.54
FAKE!!!
This website is fake!!!
Sorry, I couldn't resist :p
Paid for submission if on main page
How much is paid to the users if their video is featured on the main page? --165.230.46.150 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
lots of spurious uncited sources - please remove
This article seems to be written by someone with an axe to grind. It's not balanced and includes a large # of uncited sources (listed below). Can someone please get rid of these>
- Visitors are supposedly able to rank site material on a scale of 1 to 5, which is factored into an average score. + Supposedly? Why supposedly?
- This being because clips have made the mainpage with very few visits and low ranking. + Citation?
-Apart from the sponsored adult content, Break.com is a target of spamming from camsites and others. It can take several hours for staff to remove this content, allowing children who access the site to see it. + Citation? Does it take several hours to remove?
All for balanced and factional, but don't understand how this entry can be populated with all accustaions and propoganda. That doesn't seem right, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtwang (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC).