User talk:Hipocrite

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 WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:N, 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. rootology/equality 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. Hipocrite (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, looking at his pages...

• Collaborative divorce, 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.
• Braun Mincher seems to be notable. I was surprised he even included a criticism/controversy section on this one.
• The Kegel one petrosiannii actually redirected himself, which was surprising.
• Jack Gulick appears notable.
• Still I Rise: A Graphic History of African Americans appears notable.
• New Yorker Hotel is a landmark, and his adds there seem fine, that's the kind of information that gradually fills up any detailed article.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Longley 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 Arch Coal 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 WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:N, 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:

1. Wikipedia scores a new quality article
2. Readers get the benefit of a new quality article
3. Who doesn't need +$1000
4. Like any other article, The Hypothetical In Question 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? rootology/equality 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. rootology/equality 16:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Collaborative divorce - his edits were nothing more than linkspam
• Braun Mincher 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.
• Jack Gulick is totally NN. Again, the broken "KEEP ALL PEOPLE MENTIONED ANYWHERE" of AFD makes it unnassailable, but not good.
• Still I Rise: A Graphic History of African Americans and New Yorker Hotel 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. Hipocrite (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll go through them more tonight, but Gulick, really, NN?? With this filmography, all of this, and an Academy Award nomination? All that coasts clean past WP:N... rootology/equality 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. Hipocrite (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

David Stack

• Would you take another look at the David Stack article and possibly change your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Stack !vote? ty. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France – Papua New Guinea relations

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 [1].Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion mediation

I have been asked to mediate the content dispute regarding Cold fusion. I have set up a separate page for this mediation here. You have been identified as one of the involved parties. Please read through the material I have presented there. Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been informed that you have been banned from Cold fusion 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. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

hey

See Talk:Cold_fusion#Decision, in case you start editing the talk page without noticing. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

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 Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)