User:Hankwang/RFS talk

From Talk:Reverse funnel system in case it gets deleted.

Article or redirect?

 * Non-redirecting article link

Why was the change made on 20:13, 27 May 2008? WH Coordinator (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand this. I don't remember exactly why I created this article, but most likely I heard something about RFS and looked it up on Wikipedia, only to find a redirect to pyramid scheme where RFS was not mentioned at all. Diggng back into the history of PS, I found this edit dated 24 Mar 2008 where it was removed with the edit summary remove section because it's irrelevant and potentially WP:BLP violation. Source given is not reliable. I agree that it was not particularily relevant inside the PS article, but I did look up more sources, which establishes notability and IMO satisfies WP:BLP since I'd call WebWire a reputable source. Apparently,, who created the article, didn't like replacing the redirect to a now-nonexistant section in PS by an article and labeled it as vandalism. I find it rather disturbing to be called a vandal, since I have been with Wikipedia for 4 years and have made over 4000 edits with very little controversy among them. I will restore this article. Han-Kwang (t) 08:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * THIS IS AN AD FOR A SCAM, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. DO NOT REPOST IT.  WebWire is not a reliable source - it publishes anything from anybody willing to pay a $19.95 fee, hence "penis enlargement pills" currently being one of their top headlines.  The supposed "WebWire article" referenced is merely a straw man argument that essentially says, "Reverse Funnel System is a scam, so please sign up for the (name and URL of another scam removed) instead".  THIS IS SPAM, do not repost it lest you draw the rest of your edits into question. Reswobslc (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey man, calm down OK?! I agree with you that RFS is a scam. I think the article text made that clear since it was described as being a pyramid scheme in the first phrase, but maybe it could have been phrased more explicitly. Whether or not something is a scam is not a criterion for whether it should be described in Wikipedia; notability is. I created this article (copied from an old version of Pyramid scheme) because I was curious about the real story - it was obvious that it was a scam, but not how exactly the scam works. With 462 thousand Google hits, radio commercials (which is what brought WH Commander here) and media attention, it is notable. Our disagreement appears to be to what extent RFS should be criticized (which might be POV) in the article rather than be described with the dry facts. By the way, go ahead if you want to file an RFC about my previous 4000+ edits. I have nothing to hide. Han-Kwang (t) 16:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We already have an article describing the scam: pyramid scheme. We don't need another article for every Joe Blow who starts one and calls it by a different name.  A pig with lipstick is still just a pig. Reswobslc (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Reswobslc, when you say "We don't need...", are you quoting from a wikipedia policy or this is just your POV? WH Coordinator (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Reswobslc, then we clearly don't agree. Could we in any way make a compromise? I propose that more reliable references are found and that the article is restored with those new references included so that there is no question the article satisfies WP:N and WP:BLP. Reswobslc, you created this redirect in the first place. It is highly confusing to have an article redirect to another without any explanation how the second article is related to the first one. To you it might be obvious that it is a pyramid scheme, but I doubt that that is the case for the typical reader. A redirect such as this one is in fact your personal opinion without any sources to back it up, which is against the spirit of WP:NPOV. Han-Kwang (t) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RDR and especially WP:RDR, this is indeed not a suitable use of a redirect. Han-Kwang (t) 07:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I think you (Reswobslc) as an experienced editor should know better than delete talk-page comments, see WP:TPG. Some of what WHC wrote might be bordering on a personal attack, but IMO, WHC did not cross the line. Han-Kwang (t) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposed new version of the article. Any objections to this one?WH Coordinator (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As soon as the article says the name "Ty Coughlin", that's when it becomes spam. If you remove all references to Ty Coughlin, InnerCircle, and anything specific to that particular scam, then all you are left with is, "Reverse Funnel System is another name for something that is really just another pyramid scheme, which is a scam just like every other pyramid scheme, and which nearly all participants will lose their money, just like a pyramid scheme".  But since most of those attributes describe all pyramid schemes, a redirect to pyramid scheme pretty much covers all bases. Reswobslc (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How does reference to "Ty Coughlin" make article a spam? WH Coordinator (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How is Ty Coughlin even remotely notable? I suspect that the answer to my question will answer yours too. Reswobslc (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the answer to notability question answers the one I asked you, so let me repeat my question to you. How does reference to "Ty Coughlin" make article a spam?WH Coordinator (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests for page protection:
 * Unless that account is your sockpuppet, how can you be "sure" that his intent isn't to promote a scam when this brand new account has only 40 edits, all related to promoting pyramid schemes? Coincidentally, you happen to have authored a pyramid scheme article yourself.  See WP:SPAM.  Wikipedia is not here for the promotion of get rich quick schemes. Reswobslc (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is only called spam if the one who places it online is affiliated, which is not the case for me (which I cannot prove indeed, but neither can you prove that you don't have some hidden agenda). This authoring you're talking about is the present article, not "any pyramid scheme" and from my edit summary it is pretty clear that I didn't write that text, but I got it from this revision of Pyramid scheme, which I explained to you many times by now. Otherwise, the disputed article was not particularily positive about the subject, so I don't see why you insist on calling it "promoting". Han-Kwang (t) 08:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Randomly adding my 2¢ A redirect should redirect to a page that specifically mentions the subject, not just a related page, and some of ya'll editing this page need to re-familiarize yourselves with WP:AGF. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)