User talk:Faustus37/Archives2012/October
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Faustus37 in topic Paid spamming
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Paid spamming
User:Sharadha Bain has claimed that you are somebody he refers to as "Zack of wikipediawriters.com" and that he paid you to write the puff piece Jason Shulman. What is your response to this statement? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Um, our friend and my accuser User:Sharadha Bain has contributed a grand total of two edits to Wikipedia. TWO. So we're crystal clear, I am NOT ""Zack of wikipediawriters.com". I'm over 5,500 edits at this point going back a good 7 years plus now. I've created 200+ articles in that time, mainly dealing with the State of Idaho. The vast majority of my edits were made in an altruistic sense. Try to prove otherwise. Yes, I have written Wikipedia articles for pay. There's nothing wrong with that. I remind you COI does not prohibit that practice and never has, provided said articles do not conflict with well-established notability standards. I firmly believe nothing I have ever written here violates either principle, especially in light of WP:NOTPAPER. Believe me, I've rejected many more paid article requests than I've accepted based on standards I believe acceptable here. Evidently others do not share my inclusionist view. Well, such is life. Frankly it's only because of CNet article that the witch hunt is on in earnest. So the game is up, and the exclusionists have won. Do what you will. Faustus37 (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)