![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
looks very POV, uses the second person a couple of times. I don't know if thats against the rules, but it looks sort of like SmartFTP made this page. Mdesrosii 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
looks
fanboyish, actually. Just proceed in further occurences,
POV and
original research arent rule of thumb here. --
Omega Said
06:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
An unregistered user keeps removing references to the fact that SmartFTP used to be free for educational and non-profit use, claiming this is false information. I would be happy to add this back to the article citing relevant proof.
In additon it would be worthy to mention that the 'free' version by design had a periodic and unannounced 'expiry'. This would appear by surprise and require the user to re-download the software to continue free use. It is through this mechanism that all users who had been using the 'free' version are now forced to buy the software or find an alternative. Posts complaining about this seem to be quickly removed from their forums. ( Freakyash ( talk) 14:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC))
The facts are as following:
Spreading false or misleading information is considered slander and not just unethical but can also be legally convicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.137.183 ( talk) 23:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder - download sites and other advertising media aren't third-party sources. Tedickey ( talk) 11:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. Added link to Microsoft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 ( talk) 03:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
What is valid 3rd party reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 ( talk) 09:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
A reference to a book published by the MIT press should be sufficient according to the guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 ( talk) 11:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
To: Tedickey. Please point out the parts that you believe justify the advert tag that you keep on adding. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 ( talk) 03:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe that is your personal opinion but I see no evidence and you failed to show any. Also if you look at other pages of similar products, they are written in almost the same/similar way but they haven't been tagged by the community and neither by you. To me it looks more like that you have a personal issues with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 ( talk) 10:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Not justified because the user 84.75.163.182 only added minor changes and is not a major contributor (see history). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 ( talk) 11:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I really see no evidence of that. User 84.75.163.182 has only updated the Editions section of the article. All other content was not touched by this particular user. Even if 84.75.163.182 is considered a "fanboy" according to your opinion, the coi tag is not really justified as it applies to the article as a whole and not to an individuals contributions. The history shows that this article has been created and maintained by neutral parties over years. Other from the disagreements the user 84.75.163.182 had with the recent tags (namely yours: advert, primarysource) there is no evidence that the mentioned user has a close connection with the article. Actually it looks more likely that your actions are biased on personal issues you are having with the product mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 ( talk) 00:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC) No evidence of coi. Therefore coi will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.101.132 ( talk) 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
looks very POV, uses the second person a couple of times. I don't know if thats against the rules, but it looks sort of like SmartFTP made this page. Mdesrosii 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
looks
fanboyish, actually. Just proceed in further occurences,
POV and
original research arent rule of thumb here. --
Omega Said
06:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
An unregistered user keeps removing references to the fact that SmartFTP used to be free for educational and non-profit use, claiming this is false information. I would be happy to add this back to the article citing relevant proof.
In additon it would be worthy to mention that the 'free' version by design had a periodic and unannounced 'expiry'. This would appear by surprise and require the user to re-download the software to continue free use. It is through this mechanism that all users who had been using the 'free' version are now forced to buy the software or find an alternative. Posts complaining about this seem to be quickly removed from their forums. ( Freakyash ( talk) 14:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC))
The facts are as following:
Spreading false or misleading information is considered slander and not just unethical but can also be legally convicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.137.183 ( talk) 23:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder - download sites and other advertising media aren't third-party sources. Tedickey ( talk) 11:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. Added link to Microsoft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 ( talk) 03:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
What is valid 3rd party reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 ( talk) 09:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
A reference to a book published by the MIT press should be sufficient according to the guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 ( talk) 11:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
To: Tedickey. Please point out the parts that you believe justify the advert tag that you keep on adding. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 ( talk) 03:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe that is your personal opinion but I see no evidence and you failed to show any. Also if you look at other pages of similar products, they are written in almost the same/similar way but they haven't been tagged by the community and neither by you. To me it looks more like that you have a personal issues with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 ( talk) 10:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Not justified because the user 84.75.163.182 only added minor changes and is not a major contributor (see history). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 ( talk) 11:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I really see no evidence of that. User 84.75.163.182 has only updated the Editions section of the article. All other content was not touched by this particular user. Even if 84.75.163.182 is considered a "fanboy" according to your opinion, the coi tag is not really justified as it applies to the article as a whole and not to an individuals contributions. The history shows that this article has been created and maintained by neutral parties over years. Other from the disagreements the user 84.75.163.182 had with the recent tags (namely yours: advert, primarysource) there is no evidence that the mentioned user has a close connection with the article. Actually it looks more likely that your actions are biased on personal issues you are having with the product mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.163.182 ( talk) 00:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC) No evidence of coi. Therefore coi will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.101.132 ( talk) 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)