User talk:70.21.149.46

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • cough* Excuse me... but have you noticed how much cruft was in that part I removed? Here's some of the problems:
  • Why is this page linked to from the text 'front page'?
  • This part: "typically two frames totalling approxiately 400-500 words (400 words is the minimum length, except for works of fiction, for publishing a piece)." is not attributed to anywhere, and is thus original research.
  • Why the heck does this article have the link from 'articles concerning the arts'? You don't just pick a random 'article concerning the arts' to link to! You have some sort of references in which the source says what was edited in.
  • Similar for 'research paper'.
  • Who said this?: A check of CPs' C.V.'s reveals that some CPs write a great deal of short articles on a broad array of subjects in order to generate "page views" and higher levels of remuneration.
  • There are absolutely no sources or attribution references to be seen.
  • The following entire paragraph is pure cruft and hype: "The community of Content Producers is very active and lively, and offers CPs new and old a great deal of support, including tips and feedback. Despite the focus on money, CPs are dedicated to producing quality work to high personal standards. Plagiarism is not tolerated by the site, which naturally has the support of the CP community as they are writers of original content, and a feeling of camraderie is encouraged."

Edit re-reverted. Thanks. Kopf1988 (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)