Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:36, 28 November 2013

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Business Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

There is a question that the many censors refuse to answer. Do you think Kleargear is NOT a fraud?

It should be very clear to everyone it is because it takes a second to see that the co still has fraudulent endorsements on its website.

Since Kleargear is a scam why are there six censors for every xcontributor?

Is it the proper and right thing to do to censor instead of contribute WHEN people are getting ripped off?

(And there is more debate about text boxes than, gasp, a certain ongoing crime)

Censorship

CONGRATULATIONS to Wiki Censors ...

"Comment We are not a Consumer forum to campaign against any company. Misplaced Pages is not a Newspaper and all references solely focus on the incident and not on the company.It still clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:ORG .Even this BBC News Magazine monitor writes case for reading the Small print focus that consumers need to read the terms and conditions and also quoted the example of GameStation.com rather than the company most of the other references are from customer activism sites.As NinjaRobotPirate rightly points there is nothing to state this incident will have long lasting impact and is mere news.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"WE"? Tell us some more about what Wiki ISN'T.

You never bothered to check any of the details one iota yet you sit in judgement and censor the truth? This is a public fraud issue. An obvious and ONGOING fraud on the public. That means that even now, this very second, a criminal is ripping people off ... perhaps your grandmother, or your neighbor.

Censorship of the truth is good for what reason again? This is an example of internet fraud by an scam business and it is hurting innocent people every day. How DARE somebody spew about how this that or the other thing "fails" when they are too lazy to determine what the facts are? I read recently that editors on Wiki have dropped 70% over 10 years and are now 92% male. NOBODY is attracted to Wiki because its become a little dopey bum patting club of ego driven censors, not contributors.

Given this outrage I won't even bother with Wiki again either. Its a waste of time. Sad for the public, sad for gramma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.153.242.30 (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely Bloody UNBELIEVABLE.

WHO is trying their damnest to stop these very obvious crooks from CONTINUING to screw people and WHO is assisting them to continue in every possible fukkin way?

"Hello 71.19.182.114,

Unblock requests which are blank, nonsensical, are not serious, or contain threats of any sort (including legal threats against other editors) will not be considered. Because it fell into one or more of these categories, your appeal has been closed with no action.

Darkwind English Misplaced Pages Administrator "

Which nonesensical reason is it one wonders mightily and where is the accountability of the censors? Wiki has become an offense against the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.160.122 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This group is LOOKING, for all the world, to be a wicked scam on the public. http://neer-do-well-hall-of-infamey.blogspot.ca/2013/11/on-trail-of-utter-scumbags-kleargear.html

It is HIGHLY improper for well researched, referenced, and absolutely true material to be removed. OF COURSE the legal ownership is highly relevant, along with every other FACT that MIGHT protect the public from getting conned by a very obvious crook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.182.114 (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool down. Blogs are generally never used as reliable reference/source for many reasons, but there's been significant coverage about this case on other more credible websites, so you could use those instead. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Cool Down" are you kidding me? I spent the better part of half an hour posting fully referenced material and it ALL gets deleted by a no-life, who apparently has nothing better to do than delete material off Wiki within seconds of it's posting. Now the dope wants the entire page removed?

This is a CRIME against the public ... a very obvious scam that is ripping people off right this second. What possible use is Wiki if complete retards control content that bloody damn well SHOULD be available to the public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.182.114 (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to help here. You have your opinions on the matter, and the other editor has his/hers. However your post is sounding hysterical, and any other editors coming in to weigh in on the matter to offer their opinions will begin with a very bad taste on seeing how you are going about pushing for your version of the article. Outbursts won't make the facts any more true, but it might affect perceptions. Its like coming upon 2 persons in a debate. People tend to tsk tsk and shake their heads at the screaming party. And this will have an obvious impact at the Deletion page when other editors come in and form their first impression on the topic before voting on it. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I obviously need all the help I can get. The last censor COULD NOT have possibly checked the references in the time before ALL the material was removed. Yet this censor deleted everything. Every single word. Now this same "contributor" wants the entire page removed.

The PREVIOUS time this happened on Wiki was with a busted red handed securities reprobate who CONTINUALLY deleted material from his profile. I replaced that which was deleted. THOSE edits were removed by somebody who ADMITTED they didn't check the references.

There is something FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG with individuals (and Wiki) who seem to take pleasure in censorship. It is offensive when the losers are the public who are getting ripped off as a direct result of these "people". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.164.215 (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your emotion is finding its way on to the article you edit. This is fuelling the NPOV issue which is one of the reasons why this article is up for deletion. Editors (including myself) are attempting to neutralise the emotion so that the article can continue to live on - if it is deleted, it's gone. Blogs are not generally reliable sources, and (I'm not sure if it's you), but these direct copy-pastes from the sources into the article (along with visible URLs) is also a big formatting issue, that compromises the legitimacy. If you are passionate about Wikiediting, that's great! But your input has to reflect the standards laid down. I'm happy to assist if you'd like some pointers or instruction.

Stuart Steedman (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The non-disparagement clause

Does anyone else think that the gigantic quote box should be removed? In my opinion, it's really not adding anything to the article. We already link to articles where it's prominently displayed, and we have an archived version of it on the external links. Do we really need to quote it verbatim in the article, as well? If people really do like having it here, I won't touch it, but I think it's a bit excessive. And really big. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that it should be removed.But until the fate of the article is decided as other contributors may object.Feel we will leave it as it is.Unlike the WP:BLPPRIVACY posting of address,phone number here we can leave it till then unless they also agree to remove it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It's fine. There's no prohibition on editing articles while they're up for deletion, and if anyone does happen to object, they can voice their objection here. I've already fixed a few other issues that I've had with the article, but this one is still bothering me. I didn't want to unilaterally remove the quote box, however, as I figured some people might actually like it. It takes up half the article, though. If people really want to know the exact wording of the non-disparagement clause, they have several options at their disposal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What a bloody damn joke. We have half a dozen censors ready to spend many hours until whats left of the article is all of 4 sentences long and relates ZERO about an ogoing public fraud. The SINGULAR contributor has been chased away and AFTER said half dozen censors have done their badge-hunting work what is left?

And a body can't say squat about the fully licensed Kleargear lawyer scamming people every freakin day? Thats Misplaced Pages censorship and to join this club is to lose all ethics completely. Take a bow boyos.

I keep asking the question and NOBODY will answer it. WHO thinks Kleargear is NOT a fraud? If a body is accepting the obvious then WHY are censors bending over backward to censor every word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.182.114 (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hardy Har Har. ANOTHER block, this time for the heinous CRIME of stating an opinion here, an area not ever to be published even. I am about ready to throw up. Worry not 24/7/365 censors, I would much rather stick a red-hot poker in my eye as EVER whallow with you fully pathetic types again. (And why won't any of said censors ANSWER the simple, direct questions? I.E ... Do you think Kleargear is a fraud?

Not our place to take a position on that here. That is the only answer we have and the only answer you will get. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• Start-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• Start-Class Internet culture articles
• Low-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles