I am not entirely sure what you mean by that. The thing I was thinking was that the business is for services that could be easily used for fraud. The help page on bad ads is kind of vague as to what is considered a bad ad. I am think this one might follow the general course of logic behind the following two examples given on the help page.
Inappropriate for your community (e.g. dating ads on a community aimed at children).
With regards to gaming communities, ads about exploits and cheating
I think you're projecting something that is possible, but doesn't prevent it from being a legit business. Trust me, I work with people who need the help. They can't spell, they forget words, they improperly capitalize,... it's super annoying.
For some reason, my current browser doesn't like your link.
I have no problem with editing services (I have read plenty of very poorly written papers). However, from what I can tell, that isn't what this is. It appears that they write the paper from scratch plus whatever you give them. From the looks of it, they even do the research for you (they just need to know the type of number of sources you want).
Okay, yes they claim that the product "can" be used for reference in your own work; but then why does it matter how they site their sources? The only way I can think of that citation format would matter is if you are planning to just pass it along with your name attached at the top.
I guess site is vague enough that probably nothing would come of reporting it.
I have a few questions. I recently created the 2015 Hotfixes page, finally. lol. I will start working on the pages for missing pages for 2016-2018. I also updated Hotfixes for 2019. So, no more outdated tag on that one too.
Alright, now on to the questions.
1. Are you allowed to create a blank page for the Hotfixes and save as you keep adding to it, to be safe? So that all your work is not wiped? Like a draft version or something like that? I did 2015 by doing it all at once, over a couple hours before Publishing.
2. Is there a specific reason why 2011 Hotfixes are in 3 separate pages & 2012 in 2 pages? I would like to combine them as I review them.
3. Removed Content. Is there a guide or outline on how to do this? I see that it has not been updated for 6.0+. Yet is mostly just a grouping of articles from the wiki. Or should this be changed to a Wiki page for each patch similar to the hotfix pages?
I added most of the hotfixes and patch info to the Patches page. To shrink this page down, I would like to see if it is okay to look at moving the 6.x patches into their own page like the 1.x-5.x patches.
It didn’t even dawn on me at the time, that maybe a large issue in that thread was you feeling I was advertising a wiki:
1) Even if people were advertising or sharing their wikis, good. The site is largely wiki based so it’s nice that people share them and new series around for others to learn of.
2) Advertising wikis is one of those things I support other people doing, but is not something I would do myself. Aside for the wiki promotions on this Fandom site (which don’t even work so now I just use them to share fun blogs) I never share wikis to advertise them and this has come up before so it’s sensible to be clear.
Do you remember that Discussions post where I shared the comment in a blog and you mistook it for an attempt at promoting a wiki? I wasn’t, I was sharing it to show a comment relevant to what we were discussing. Exactly the same with that thread, I was sharing the Maiden Rose wiki not to advertise but since that was a suitable example to back up the points being made.
To think I'm some kind of gormless imbecile of a buffoon going around random Discussions posts and threads – that no will would ever even see, to try and plug the wikis I'm on… kindly don’t depict me in such a manner.
I mean I am a gormless imbecile of a buffoon for real, I just don’t want anyone to find out because I might feel self conscious.
If the wiki examples to back up the points I was making were misconstrued as an odd attempt at me advertising a wiki, that would certainly explain what went on. That admin thought both our replies were not nice, but with mine I was just saying those things to lighten the mood. I am sorry if they did hurt your feelings, no way at all was that the goal, honestly it was just confusing, understandably now.
Do hope that clears things, sure it’s good to move on which brings us right back to square one: namely staff not taking part in communities when they announce they want to. It’s an interesting comedy sketch I guess, eh.
I am glad of that, it was kind of like some spiralling water down a plughole, well briefly, so good to be out of that at least.
Might be worth waiting if staff would like to comment? If it’s any consolation I am trying to keep things on topic with the benefit of actual cases. Either way the staff on there, when they are on there (whole decreased involvement and all) did seem to want to answer their whole decline in the Fandom community and I would certainly hope they could change their planned direction. I genuinely cannot see how the new plan can help people, I don’t know maybe I’m missing something but worth hearing them out.
But both we and everyone else who could have benefitted from answers were waiting for staff to reply? We can’t get our clarifications if the thread staff need to take part on is gone XD
Also since everyone took part isn’t it fair to consider it everyone’s thread? Instead of pulling the rug out from everyone kindly reinstate the thread for staff to answer yours, mine and others related concerns?
Start your own thread and maybe you will get FANDOM staff to reply. Hijacking my thread to get a FANDOM staff reply that is off topic to my intended topic is not the way to go. If you try it again, I will remove the thread again.