From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tags

Hi, please, could you specify which content should be removed from our wikipedia web page in order to agree with wikipedia legislation?? Becouse, after reviewing many other web page from our direct competitors,i don´t find any difference between at all. Thank you. 213.254.84.80 ( talk) 11:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply


This is an ad and a poor one at that, Please delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.238.177 ( talkcontribs) 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

offensive ads

This product was only brought to my attention by an advertisement by the vendor, which I (as a man, if that's important to you) found offensive and degrading of women. And yet the article has nothing to say about how the product has been advertised? Are we really expected to believe that absolutely no one of any notability has published material related to this advertising? — 184.32.175.25 ( talk) 00:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply

sources...

The DrDobbs link is a press-release rather than a review. The same for EETimes, etc. (reviews should contrast alternatives and pros/cons rather than solely citing nice things to say about a product). It appears that only the screenshots posted by de Icaza are independent commentary - and still not a review, per se. TEDickey ( talk) 10:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tags

Hi, please, could you specify which content should be removed from our wikipedia web page in order to agree with wikipedia legislation?? Becouse, after reviewing many other web page from our direct competitors,i don´t find any difference between at all. Thank you. 213.254.84.80 ( talk) 11:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply


This is an ad and a poor one at that, Please delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.238.177 ( talkcontribs) 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply

offensive ads

This product was only brought to my attention by an advertisement by the vendor, which I (as a man, if that's important to you) found offensive and degrading of women. And yet the article has nothing to say about how the product has been advertised? Are we really expected to believe that absolutely no one of any notability has published material related to this advertising? — 184.32.175.25 ( talk) 00:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply

sources...

The DrDobbs link is a press-release rather than a review. The same for EETimes, etc. (reviews should contrast alternatives and pros/cons rather than solely citing nice things to say about a product). It appears that only the screenshots posted by de Icaza are independent commentary - and still not a review, per se. TEDickey ( talk) 10:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook