Talk:Break.com

message: Public or private corporation
Break does not pay 100% of the time when a video is posted on their homepage. For instance I know of several users as well as myself who have had videos posted of their own but have never been paid. Just saying.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.46.211 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  REVENUES

message: How much is paid to the users if their video is featured on the main page? --165.230.46.150 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paid for submission if on main page 

message: I have received an email at wikipedia HelpDesk regarding this article.  In taking a look at it I've found an edit war over content that should not even be included in wikipedia in the first place.  I have removed all of it and I will continue to remove it so long as it replies on trivial primary sources and contains original research.  See these POLICIES:  WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:ATT.  Anything that fails to conform with those policies in letter or in spirit will be removed without hesitation. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 04:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  Hopefully the page will be semi-protected.--Pollyfodder 05:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have again reverted your edits to this page, Pollyfodder. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup 

message: Stop putting sock tags on this page.  Those are NOT for article talk pages. Those tags are for USER talk pages. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 11:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP with the Sock-tags 

message: This site has a ton of racist "commentary" and should be cited as such.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.68.26 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I just wanted to show the preference to Wikipedia's own internal articles. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have replaced citations to Easteregg and NSFW after they were removed.--Pollyfodder 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Have again fixed the citations for Easteregg and NSFW after they were altered by editor unknown.  Message left below these on page asking editor to explain actions here in the discussion page were not only ignored but he/she also deleted the message.--Pollyfodder 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop fucking messing up the ref-tags in this article. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not good for editors to use such profanity. First you say "Fair enough" then "Stop fucking up the ref-tags"?  I did not know it was you that changed them!  I did leave a message asking whoever it was to leave a note here in the discussion page before "someone" deleted it (remember).  I suggest you modify the "catagories", esspecially whilst other editors are starting to discover the true agenda of  this page! Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard--Pollyfodder 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: <B>(So it is on record) In keeping with recent amendments to the Break.com page I have amended the "categories" in the content section as they are detailed in the same paragraph, in doing so removing the link to the Break.com website which is already featured in the external links section (as I have  mentioned to editor J.Smith in other comments/replys above).</B>--Pollyfodder 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for my profanity.  That was uncivil of me. However, my point remains the same... this article uses the <ref> system of footnotes. Reverting to the inferior inline-EL system lowered the quality of the article. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 14:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RACIST 

message: * With the link to break.com's "categories" (even though the categories are mentioned on the page) I thought it appropriate to also include these citations.--Pollyfodder 02:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I just wanted to show the preference to Wikipedia's own internal articles. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have replaced citations to Easteregg and NSFW after they were removed.--Pollyfodder 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Have again fixed the citations for Easteregg and NSFW after they were altered by editor unknown.  Message left below these on page asking editor to explain actions here in the discussion page were not only ignored but he/she also deleted the message.--Pollyfodder 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop fucking messing up the ref-tags in this article. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not good for editors to use such profanity. First you say "Fair enough" then "Stop fucking up the ref-tags"?  I did not know it was you that changed them!  I did leave a message asking whoever it was to leave a note here in the discussion page before "someone" deleted it (remember).  I suggest you modify the "catagories", esspecially whilst other editors are starting to discover the true agenda of  this page! Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard--Pollyfodder 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: <B>(So it is on record) In keeping with recent amendments to the Break.com page I have amended the "categories" in the content section as they are detailed in the same paragraph, in doing so removing the link to the Break.com website which is already featured in the external links section (as I have  mentioned to editor J.Smith in other comments/replys above).</B>--Pollyfodder 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for my profanity.  That was uncivil of me. However, my point remains the same... this article uses the <ref> system of footnotes. Reverting to the inferior inline-EL system lowered the quality of the article. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 14:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added citations for Easteregg and NSFW 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Break.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071010102443/http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003568498 to http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003568498
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Defy Media closed shop; effectively ending Break.com and various other online sites : https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/defy-media-shutting-down-layoffs-1203020919/
Defy Media on wiki : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defy_Media  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.140.224.246 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shut Down 

message: Is it worth making a note that the webaite now using the Break.com domain is not the same as this Wiki? it seems like the domain was sold off but I cannot find a source for this. The loss of data from the sudden closing of Break has not been covered at all. I think both of these should be noted really. Lovesan92 (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break Domain /  Data loss