User talk:Gleb Tsipursky

Hello all!

Also, we should probably chat about your new article on it's talk page. I don't think many people here are fans of self-promotion, but your article may be okay if fixed up anyways(maybe). ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Gleb.
You've now linked to your website on 3 4 five separate pages, and I have removed it. Self-promotion is the worst kind of promotion. If our community thinks it's worthwhile, notable, and of a sufficiently high quality, someone will give it the Rationalwiki imprimatur. Thanks, Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie, I have done so on the advice of RationalWiki users on the article talk page here. I would appreciate it if you discuss the issue there instead of unilaterally choosing to remove the link. Thank you.
 * FuzzyCat is kind of our problem child, and I wouldn't set too much stock in his advice. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you help me learn, then, what would be a better approach to engaging with RationalWiki folks than to listen to such advice?
 * Wow, thanks. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Write a good blog. Produce quality content. Get the kind of people who edit our website to read it and think highly of it. Contribute to our community without linking to your own stuff. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AgingHippie, I am a bit concerned that your comments contradict those made by ikanreed, Alec Sanderson, and Fuzzy in this Talk page, as they all seemed to be quite open to me posting some of my content here, for example, posting blog entries in the WIGO. Is that something you see as highly problematic? Gleb Tsipursky (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. You seem to be here only to promote your project. We have no idea if that project is any good. You have posted links to your project on five different pages on our website. One word for that is "spamming." The vast, vast majority of the links on the pages you have tried to edit were placed there by people who were disinterested in the sites in question -- fans, if you will. Get some fans, they will promote your site for you. Show some interest in our project as a contributor for a few months, and then say "hey, glad you like my contributions. Here's something else I do." Then you won't look like a spammer who wants to use whatever audience and reputation we have to flog his own stuff for free. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your perspective, AgingHippie. I actually have been a fan of RationalWiki for years, and have enjoyed its contents as a consumer. I haven't contributed content to it previously, and hoped to help out by contributing the content I created. I see that doing so is against your perspective for what you prefer to be the case. Thank you for sharing, and since you seem to be the one who decides how things run around here, I will follow your advice. Gleb Tsipursky (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All I said on that talk page was that the article you wrote was smooth, nicely written, and not too egregious, as self-promotion goes. I still do not think Aging Hippie deleted it too hastily. I agree with his earlier comments: eventually someone else may think highly enough of Intentional Insights that they mention it on RationalWiki. Until then, repeatedly digging up the seed, so to speak, to see if it has sprouted yet, will not help. By that, I mean repeatedly adding links to your site. That could, in some eyes, look like link spamming. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)