User talk:Eusebeus: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:08, 18 December 2008 edit68.87.42.110 (talk) →Corporate spam (redux): new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:52, 18 December 2008 edit undoEusebeus (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,667 edits →Corporate spam (redux): commentNext edit →
Line 15:		Line 15:
	*Oh yea, I'll get right on that for you. ] (]) 17:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)		*Oh yea, I'll get right on that for you. ] (]) 17:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
	::Are you aware that the original ] article was not written in exchange for any payment, nor was even the Arch Coal company aware of its provenance? The original author has stated publicly that the article's purpose was to test Wikipedians' ability to discern paid and unpaid content, and that the only reason it was "Arch Coal" was that (at the time) it was the largest Fortune 1000 firm still lacking a Misplaced Pages article. The original author didn't even publish it in Misplaced Pages. It was scraped in by an ]. So, you scoff away all you want. Your reluctance to define "corporate spam" indicates that you have no basis to describe the Arch Coal article as "corporate spam". Arch Coal had nothing to do with it. So it was therefore not "corporate" and awfully hard to conceive how it was "spam". You should apologize (as Jimbo did), and retract your . Or, do you have a of your own that prevents you from addressing this question about "corporate spam" in a fair manner? -- ] (]) 19:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)		::Are you aware that the original ] article was not written in exchange for any payment, nor was even the Arch Coal company aware of its provenance? The original author has stated publicly that the article's purpose was to test Wikipedians' ability to discern paid and unpaid content, and that the only reason it was "Arch Coal" was that (at the time) it was the largest Fortune 1000 firm still lacking a Misplaced Pages article. The original author didn't even publish it in Misplaced Pages. It was scraped in by an ]. So, you scoff away all you want. Your reluctance to define "corporate spam" indicates that you have no basis to describe the Arch Coal article as "corporate spam". Arch Coal had nothing to do with it. So it was therefore not "corporate" and awfully hard to conceive how it was "spam". You should apologize (as Jimbo did), and retract your . Or, do you have a of your own that prevents you from addressing this question about "corporate spam" in a fair manner? -- ] (]) 19:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
			:::In the words of one much greater than myself, I am a harmless drudge and you are wasting your time bothering with what I think. ] (]) 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:52, 18 December 2008

Deja Messages Ici Bitte. I will generally respond to any comments, queries, calumnies or complaints here. Whatever you do, no templates

Archives

Corporate spam (redux)

You recently commented on something being "corporate spam". Would you please give your definition of what constitutes corporate spam? Especially, formulate your definition with attention to the relative bearings of authorship, content, and purpose. Thank you in advance. -- 68.87.42.110 (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yea, I'll get right on that for you. Eusebeus (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that the original Arch Coal article was not written in exchange for any payment, nor was even the Arch Coal company aware of its provenance? The original author has stated publicly that the article's purpose was to test Wikipedians' ability to discern paid and unpaid content, and that the only reason it was "Arch Coal" was that (at the time) it was the largest Fortune 1000 firm still lacking a Misplaced Pages article. The original author didn't even publish it in Misplaced Pages. It was scraped in by an unaffiliated editor. So, you scoff away all you want. Your reluctance to define "corporate spam" indicates that you have no basis to describe the Arch Coal article as "corporate spam". Arch Coal had nothing to do with it. So it was therefore not "corporate" and awfully hard to conceive how it was "spam". You should apologize (as Jimbo did), and retract your comment here. Or, do you have a conflict of interest of your own that prevents you from addressing this question about "corporate spam" in a fair manner? -- 68.87.42.110 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In the words of one much greater than myself, I am a harmless drudge and you are wasting your time bothering with what I think. Eusebeus (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)