Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:49, 8 December 2010

December 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Comments left by random internet users on a website are not reliable sources. The links you provided could only be used to present an overall positive review of the site. Also, please note WP:3RR. Onorem♠Dil 14:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about?!? Go to the website and do what I told you, try to get a software or two. And if not us, the users do not warn the user about dishonest/unsafe websites, who is going to do that? Don't worry that i sent complaints to google also, and the truth is going to prevail. As I said before, Wikipdia want to create a vail of impartiality but in fact with your approace, condone the crooks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk • contribs)

Reliable sources have to talk about it before we do. Personal experiences don't count. It's that simple. --Onorem♠Dil 15:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to communicate with you; what are u saying about the links cited are not sources. Why YOU DON'T GO TO www.softpedia.com and download and install Babylon translater, now I don't remember which one, if you search, on the first page if hits you get 3 or 4. Just install one or two of those and see what a nice trojan you get. It happened to me about 3 months ago, and THIS IS NOT PROOF THAT we have to warn users about that? And if you try to download something, how many clicks you make to get something... THAT IS NOT "Disguised Ads? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk • contribs)

I don't care if your comments are true. There has to be a reliable source for it. (I don't keep linking that for no reason) --Onorem♠Dil 15:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages site who are these guys that says all these? http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk%3ASoftpedia

I started wondering if you guys get any advantage/donation from Softpedia, that you keep defending them.

And by the way, what did you say?!?...you don't care that my comments are true? Who the hell are you, you keep deleting what other people before me said, the truth about these crooks. I will start a campaing that[REDACTED] or some of whatever you call yourself are covering for crooked websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk • contribs)

I certainly don't get any benefits from Softpedia...in fact, I can't say for sure whether I'd even heard of them before today.

We aren't covering for crooked websites. We are enforcing the policies of this website, which requires information to be reliably sourced. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand, but good luck with your campaign. --Onorem♠Dil 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Misplaced Pages. WuhWuzDat 15:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don' accept the saying of those two websites and comments of some programmers in Misplaced Pages, what you consider, smartpants, a reliable source?

Is this a reliabble source?

http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/Softpedia-website-is-not-safe/m-p/188629

We are dealing with potential viruses/malware spread so if you have even one case, people should be made aware of that to prevent more infections... or problably you cannot comprehend this topic

Nope, thats a FORUM, try actually reading WP:RS before your next comment. (We are trying to help, but if you just keep ranting without reading the information we provide, you won't last long here). WuhWuzDat 16:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Softpedia and Onorem In what am I wrong Softpedia? Am I wrong that you are using "disguised ads"? Am I wrong that if I try to download a program from your webstie, you don't offer a clear link to download, confusing users to click on various "download" links that do not lead to the software that the user is looking for? With what else you can proof me wrong? I don't have the time but, if I would have, I would download a few programs, not more than 5 and I bet that I will find a malware or so. How McAffee and a few others tested you?...downloading software that are important and look for by most people? That's not relevant to give you a Green bullet; they should try also some unknown software that you host. So your "assertion" that you test the software and give green light only to the clean ones is not "a VERIFIABLE SOURCE", and is against Misplaced Pages policies; IS THAT RIGHT Misplaced Pages?! Onorem, should Softpedia delete that part? or we are talking double-standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User talk:KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk • contribs) 12:54:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please take a break and read some of the policies that you have been asked to read. Continuing your assumption that other editors are operating in bad faith is not helpful. Also, please wp:SIGN your posts on talkpages with four tildes so we can have some chance of being able to follow discussions. Thank you.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC) That was mostly a question to the guy from Softpedia. I read what you told me and now can you answer me why you don't delete what Softpedia asserts like being a verifiable fact? Are you from USA? Have you heard of false advertising and in US are laws against it? The fact that you don't delete this "According to Softpedia, all software products and games they list are thoroughly tested. ", looks like double standard to me. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Last warning, last chance

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Softpedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. previous warnings are not working, last chance Momo san 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You are being discussed at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Momo san 19:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) hopefully somebody in this establishment (wikipedia) will relize that your scope is to be an independent, objective institution and not a platform for cheap advertising

KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Are you going to keep me much longer in "suspense"...when are going to delete their advertesing or put back my contra-advertising?

Both "advertising" and "contra-advertising" are explicitly disallowed. Just because we have an article on a product, company, or album does not mean we are advertising for it. —Jeremy 21:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

So if that's true, why you accept their opinion and keep deleting mine (and other before me that started that topic)?!? KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the article history, bias. —Jeremy 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "bias", but the Criticism section was added in Sept by IP 202.126.98.210, and until recently when I added a few more real facts, you guys did not care about I don't know what "policy" being broken. "04:11, 9 September 2010 202.126.98.210 (talk) (3,485 bytes) (Added a criticism section, describing Softpedias disguised ads approach to serving content.) (undo)" KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Did not know about != did not care. There's millions of articles on Misplaced Pages; to suggest we have the manpower to aggressively monitor each article is patently ridiculous. —Jeremy 22:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy, like a few "volunteers" before you, you still don't answer to the point, why YOU DELETE my contribution and DO NOT DELETE softpedia ADVERTISING (I should say free advertising). Can you please answer to this simple question? Thank you. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're aiming that at me specifically, I have not touched the article or anything else in it, so I could not have reverted anyone's contribution on that article. I cannot speak for other editors any more than Muhammad can speak for Horus.

And while we're on the topic, you notice in the article history that I link above that all those time/date stamps are blue? None of those revisions are deleted; only administrators have the power to delete edits out of page histories. I don't do this to be mean; I do this because most new or infrequent users conflate reversion with deletion. Your contribution remains in the article history, under your username - again, new or infrequent users do not realize this. —Jeremy 08:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC) It is clear to me that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source of info, a lot of reviews, media, people in the know give the warning that Misplaced Pages can not be trusted. I see that with my own eyes now, and before I get out (and never visit this website) I want to make a suggestion regarding your “strict” policy regarding verifiable source of info. I understand that policy to be applied for well-known topics that have been written about in many media sources. I think is a non-sense, a disservice to users asking that policy to be applied to a trivial, un-known, insignificant topic like www.softpedia.com. Where somebody can find such “verifiable” sources? Should we go and ask media, Web-security companies, PC magazine to rate web-sites like this every year or so? Allowing only one point of view (theirs), given them the liberty to publicize what and how they are doing their thing and not allowing another point of view, a “check” to agree/disagree to their saying, I don’t think that is correct and conform to what big Jimbo thinks that Misplaced Pages should stand for. .

Of course "Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source". Did somebody say it was? That is precisely why we don't allow wp:original research like you proposed. Readers cannot and should not have to trust statements in WP. They should, instead, be able to read the cited sources and determine for themselves if those sources support those statements. So by all means, seek out useful published sources describing the subject. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

--Sorry LeadSongDog but you guys are useless, you don't want to answer to my questions, your arguments are like a broken record, repeating only what you were brainwashed to say. Can you tell me how to report the issue above to your supervisors, or you just dictate and nobody controls you? Thank you, your highness.

KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Misplaced Pages cerberus, is this link a verifiable one, according to your NPOV policy? Based on that, I want to add to softpedia webpage that they use deceptive layout and ads making difficult for user to find the download link. CAN I DO THAT OR YOU WILL ACCUSE ME AGAIN OF VANDALIZING? http://website-in-a-weekend.net/making-money/advertising-design/

"Integration, not deception

Notice how hard it can be hard to find the real download link on download pages hosted on some download websites with white backgrounds like Softpedia which host freeware, shareware, and trialware? Tricky, right?

Users feeling tricked and might not return to your site. And that’s bad for future earnings from ad clicks."