Talk:Esquire (magazine)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
About the link to C|Net I don't see where the spyware is.
And about the vanity. Is just a reference to the encyclopedia, and if we are going to delete, delete the links to the article in Wikipedia too.
I don't see the point in deleting the reference to Wikipedia. -- (Said someone who didn't know that they could sign their comments using ~~~~)
(I know, just forgot to do it
Albert 16:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean the spyware isn't there. I noticed three variants Doubleclick, Mediaplex and Avenue A Inc. I don't know why you can't see it. I notice that there are actually complaints about this on C|Net's TechRepublic discussion forum. People are particularly unhappy that the TechRepublic article warning people about spyware installs spyware onto their computers. Who can blame them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
CNet have moved now removed the spyware from their site, so I have reinstated the link. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WP:ITAAW
I just came to this page and had no idea what the Improve this article thing was about, but having researched the history I found the deleted explanation in the form of the following:
- In September 2005, the Esquire writer A.J. Jacobs ran an experiment and posted an article in Wikipedia with factual errors with the intention the community would fix it. The experiment was a success and the article was improved and expanded with the factual errors corrected in the first 24 hours.
It is madness to have an unexplained link to something that on the surface has no links to Esquire, removing its explanation because it is a self-reference. If it is important enough to have as a link it is important enough to have two lines explaining that link. I will reinstate the paragraph shortly unless a better option is presented. Driller thriller 14:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
