Talk:I Am Rich

I vote not to delete
Keep it, or at the very worst merge it with the app store article. This is an ongoing issue, and future developments may cause the article to be merged with criticisms of apple, because of apple's deletion of the app which violated no rules of the app store, and for not paying Heinrick. If you don't keep the article, at least merge it somewhere, because this IS something a lot of websites have reported on, making it high-profile news amongst nerds and developers like myself, and since the app is now a rarity, its future worth (granted its authenticity can be proven via embedded assembly metadata or whatnot) may be enough as so to keep this article around.

Like I said, this is an ongoing issue currently, and deleting it before a major development could be unnecessary work for everyone.

In short: I vote to keep it, or at least compromise and merge it with an appropriate article.

Anthony cargile (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

no do not delete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Wierdo82 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

last phrase
I don't see it being implied in the reference website 69.114.133.110 (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * YOu don't see what being implied? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

iJailbreak
Should someone do an artice about ijailbreak? Bchs23 (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it still currently an App?
Is I Am Rich still an iPhone + iPod touch application? I thought that it was deleted, and searches in the App Store, even of the user himself, show no results of the I Am Rich or I Am Richer App. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As the article says, I Am Rich was removed from the App Store soon after launch, while I Am Richer is an Android application, not iPhone. --Jonathan Drain (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. CloneSaber (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

German
Can anyone write this in German, please ? Thanks, guys ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.62.106 (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Similar apps
A simmilar thing is http://www.sms-vaska.se/ where you can send 200 SEK (slightly less than 30 USD) just to show you can afford it. It was developed after several bars did no longer allow you to buy a bottle of champagne and then pour it out. It has been covered in national media. // Liftarn (talk)
 * I agree that sms-vaska is another example of a Veblen good, but I don't see it's connection to this application. The former is an SMS-based service for dispensing of monies, whereas the latter is a controversial iPhone app.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 04:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no direct connection apart from the intended use and that both are done using a mobile phone. // Liftarn (talk)

Neutral
I have changed some of the language in this article to make it more neutral, As there seemed to be a certian bias towards Apple, eg..

"--unlike apple--" DimVinn (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not the first to make that edit, and I never understood it before and reverted it without any dissension. I still don't understand how it's biased, but since others apparently do, I'll acquiesce to the apparent consensus.  —   Fourthords  | =/\= | 17:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
Can we delete this? This article seems to be about a useless, non-notable phone application. --Epicgenius ''' My Epic Contributions/ My Genius Talk |undefined —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to, you can nominate it at articles for deletion. But I'd say the sources in the article argue against the idea that it's non-notable. Robofish (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The article appears to pass the general notability guideline, hence it should stay. Cliff12345 (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

removal of material
has now thrice removed verified, cited material from the article (18:49, 3 December 2018, 19:50, 3 December 2018, & 03:49, 5 December 2018). As part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I told the user to bring their concerns to the talk page, but they instead reinstated their edits.At 19:50 on 3 December 2018, Joefromrandb said,. They are referring to a citation to Vox, but I've found nothing at the reliable-sources noticeboard identifying Vox as an unreliable source. It's then original research to declare the source as inappropriate on an editor's opinion that they're wrong. Joefromrandb is not a reliable source for whether Zachary Crockett is wrong and should be listened to.At 03:49 on 5 December 2018, Joefromrandb said,. Joefromrandb removed the following sentence: Vox writer Zachary Crockett called it "the ultimate Veblen good in app form". This is not a false statement; Zachary Crockett wrote those words, and they were cited and linked to the source for proof.Because I will not instigate an edit war with another editor at this time, I'm leaving Joefromrandb's excision in place for the time-being. I welcome any input towards a resolution from interested editors. —  fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  17:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, for fuck's sake! It is a false statement. No one is denying that Crockett wrote those words — the problem is that they're demonstrably incorrect. We as editors have the responsibility to identify and use the highest-quality sources available. A source that contains a demonstrably incorrect statement is egregiously and obviously inappropriate (see WP:Verifiable but not false). This app was not only not a Veblen good; it is the exact opposite of a Veblen good: a tiny handful of people actually purchased it, and almost all of those few either did so by accident, or demanded a refund upon realizing that they had been swindled. The writer who called it a "Veblen good" obviously doesn't understand what a Veblen good is. The issue isn't with Vox or with Crockett as sources; generally speaking, they're both likely fine. The issue is, that in this specific case, for this specific statement, the information is quite clearly wrong. Being verifiable or coming from a generally-accepted-as-reliable source does not guarantee inclusion, and removing the statement is not "original research", but rather responsible editing. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * […]   […]     Have you discussed Vox at the reliable-source noticeboard—and received consensus that its unreliable for our uses—since my original comment here?  Secondly, I haven't seen any other reliable sources that describe Zachary Crockett's interpretation as incorrect or inappropriate, the essay to which you linked notwithstanding.Lastly, IAW the talk page guidelines ("Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning"), I have reverted your change to the section header.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  16:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

second verse
Let's be thorough, here. The next paragraph deals with the article itself, while the following paragraph deals with this talk page.On 18:49, 3 December 2018, removed from the article a reliable source and its accompanying claim; they didn't provide a reason per se, only saying, "this edit was apparently lost in a revert of IP vandalism". On 19:42, 3 December 2018, I replaced the removed source and prose, saying, "rv removal of verified content (that caused citation errors)". At this point, Joefromrandb has been bold and I have reverted their edit; per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus." Instead of discussing matters however, Joefromrandb reverted my entire edit at 19:50, 3 December 2018 (eight minutes later). I reverted Joefromrandb at 19:59, 3 December 2018, explicitly pointing them to WP:BRD and inviting discussion. They instead waited 32 hours and reverted at 03:49, 5 December 2018, saying, "rm demonstrably false statement". Not only did Joefromrandb dismiss all calls to discussion, but the statement removed was "Vox writer Zachary Crockett called it 'the ultimate Veblen good in app form'." This claim is sourced, whether Joefromrandb disagrees with Mr. Crockett or not. At this juncture, I accepted that Joefromrandb currently owned the article, and took to the talk page.The chief concern of Joefromrandb seems to be their disagreement with Zachary Crockett's statement; Joefromrandb assures me that their interpretation should override Vox's as a reliable source. This struck me as original research, and so I titled the above second-level header "original research by Joefromrandb". As can be read above, I explained the goings-on at the article and invited interested watchers and editors to discuss. In reply, Joefromrandb swore at my comments twice (00:43, 7 December 2018 & 00:45, 7 December 2018), argued that their interpretation superceded Zachary Crockett's. In contravention of the talk page guidelines ("Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning"), Joefromrandb changed the second-level header to "removal of material" (a title I'm sanguine with if the other upsets Joefromrandb, though I did revert it once IAW WP:TPO). Then there was a span where they and I edited back and forth over the second-level header and the use of formerly. I will reiterate: a declaration of original research is not a personal attack as defined by the policy, and the use of formerly is recommended by the behavioral guideline.In short: Zachary Crockett from Vox made a claim, and the article explicitly stated this, not making a declaration of truth one way or another. If Joefromrandb would like to publish a rebuttal in a reliable source saying, 'Zachary Crockett is full of it', we could cite that too. —  fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  23:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)