Talk:Tim Ferriss/Archives/2021

Advertising Through Wikipedia?
Reading this bio gives me the overwhelming urge to want to buy Ferriss's book. So that means it's pretty effective advertising, disguised as an encyclopedia article. Kudos! Dollarwizard (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. It's a puff piece. Marketing bullshit. This cannot be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.7.92 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the page, as it stands is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.200.50 (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh. I've been on a quite lovely six-month mini-retirement myself. Try it, you'll like it. Yworo (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some interesting points on semantics of "work" in this blog http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2009/01/08/5-time-management-tricks-i-learned-from-years-of-hating-tim-ferriss/. I don't know if it could help make this page less like an advetisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.56.141 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sentences like this make me cringe: "Leah Busque, the founder of TaskRabbit, called the airline ticket she bought to meet Ferriss "the best $750 I ever spent." - Of course she says that, Tim Ferriss is one of the biggest investors in Task Rabbit. This sentence has nothing to do in a "Reception" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.142.10 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is advertising-CarryLedg — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarryLedg (talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is my first time looking at the article and I must say 5 years later it is still garbage. I'm going to start getting it to conform to encyclopediac standards. Ashmoo (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, "garbage" might be a bit much. Sorry about the inflammatory language. But I still believe the article suffers from POV. Ashmoo (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree this is spam - too many sources in the intro. Statoman71 (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed again. Put the advert tag on it. Chisme (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been a problem with the article for at least 6 years. Do you have any specific recommendations to make. At this point I don't think adding a tag is enough. (This isn't a snark, I'm genuinely seeking input, since I've been trying to fix the article for a while now). Ashmoo (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Removing tag. Trimmed down some excessive lists. Beyond that the language is NPOV and all sources from reputable outlets. If there are specific sections that need improvement, tag individually so they can be worked on. Brotherxandepuss (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading through it, I don't think the tag is necessary any longer. Totorotroll (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Did some work to remove puffery and edit down to mostly-verifiable (or at least sourced) fact, which I feel is sufficient to remove the advert tag as long as advertisement-y language isn't reinserted. Tollsjo (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)