User talk:34pin6

Your claim of having no connection to Gnosis Arts is not credible. On their website they brag that they created the Wikipedia article on . This account created that article. There are other indicators that this is the same editor as banned user, but those are best kept confidential.  Will Beback   talk    00:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OKay I lied . you got me. You wanna arrest me? (You do, don't you)

But here's the problem: that no one seems to want to address. Paid editing is not against wikipedia policy. Is it frowned upon: yes. Is it a COI, yes. But is it against policy? And it seems odd to me, that something so objectionable, would be so hard to pass as policy??

No. So how does one go about it the right way? You never say. You say we should disclose our intentions. But when we do that, you slap good articles with COI and and the other b*****t you like to use. User:kohser flat out admits he's a paid editor, and has list of shitty articles worse than most of the ones we've written. But he was nominated to the Board and you don't go banning his acct.

You guys have all the power, and we have NONE. You don't get paid, but you keep all the power. We get paid, but we have very little power. I say, it's even.

Here's what's funny: if I don't want you to catch me, you won't. Why? Because there is still a such thing as privacy. You guys have all the privacy; we have very little. Really, if we play by all the rules, we have none. So we have to cheat the rules, in order to maintain the privacy you admins, sysops and checkusers enjoy routinely. pricks.

Ok Ok. So this means war. It is what it is now, I am waging war against you. And you're going to have to become the tyrant you think I am, in order to stop me. byaatch 34pin6 (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Paid editing, in and of itself, is not prohibited. However evading blocks is not allowed. If you would like to get your original block overturned, you should appeal to the WP:ARBCOM or directly to user:Jimmy Wales. Edits by banned users may be reverted or deleted without any other cause, so even if you sneak back again you will find that your edits do not last and that your effort is wasted. That's not a productive solution for anyone. Pending your appeal, please do not return to editing.    Will Beback    talk    05:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Benowitz


The article David Benowitz has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Individual of moniro if any notability, no 3rd-party profiles, created by paid editor.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Will Beback   talk    00:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)