Talk:Alluc/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Alluc. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Regarding the 'hang on' tag
A group of people are currently trying to allow this article to meet the criteria for Wikipedia as mentioned in previous discussions. If it's possible, please mention what should be added.
We have already added the sites history, it's significance on the future of TV and how it has affected many companies. Thanks. (JasonGuthrie123 09:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC))
Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content <> articles by the guardian, newyork times and the financialpost (canadian newspaper) and 206400 accumalative hits on google on "alluc" and "allfg" {Iyenweyel 10:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)}
please disable AllucPerson from editing this page {Iyenweyel 11:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)}
Please keep in mind
- comment please keep in mind that we are only newcomers and that we not yet know fully how the wikipedia system work, instead of just saying delete you could actually read the article and help us improve it...
Wikipedia improves not only through the hard work of more dedicated members, but also through the often anonymous contributions of many curious newcomers. All of us were newcomers once, even those careful or lucky enough to have avoided common mistakes, and many of us consider ourselves newcomers even after months (or years) of contributing.
New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things.
WP:BITE Iyenweyel 10:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not a chat page, Iyenweyel. This is for the article discussion. This is your last warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.130.160 (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Change needed to intro
Is the introduction not rather misleading? The first paragraphs list a number of uses that are, shall we say, "morally acceptable", whilst making absolutely no mention that the vast majority of it's users will surely be using it to circumvent copyright laws. Was this intro written by the site owner or something? Or just by fan-boys who like to justify their pirating to the outside world? There should be a clear note about what the site is really used for, otherwise this article is less 'factual' and more 'moral flattery'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.149.15 (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)