Talk:AllPeers: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:43, 20 December 2006

Totally Unprofessional

"After P2P software and instant messaging, it's internet browsers' turn to allow content sharing." This is totally a personal opinion.

The article should be completely cleaned up. --71.163.74.162 01:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

Marked as stub. Needs WAY more content. --ALIENDUDE5300 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Added Links to Other Articles on Wikipedia. ALIENDUDE5300 02:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cruft/ad-like-prose

i removed a ton of cruft and ad-like prose (like linking allpeers to its website at every mention of the word 'AllPeers'). trimmed the linkfarm at the end in accordance with WP:EL. also not that wikipedia is not a blog - we don't need the blow by blow for each version featurette. it now reads like an article instead of a product-push. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 07:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot is not a screenshot

Note that the "screenshot" is actually a capture of our website. What's more, it's a page from our private beta that doesn't exist anymore. I'll try to get someone here to deal with it. comment added by 80.95.104.81 ([1] attributed by Widefox 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Future Development Section

I noticed the re-added the Future Development Section; I removed it because of WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until these things are added they should stay out of an article. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

many fixes

Many problems - mostly fixed.... I'm concerned about WP:COI, WP:NPOV

User:ALIENDUDE5300 - do you have an affiliation with AllPeers?
80.95.104.81 please sign your comments [2] here, as per guidelines, preferably by logging in to aid discussion.

inetnum: 80.95.104.80 - 80.95.104.83 netname: BN-JANODVARKO-NET descr: Jan Odvarko descr: Praha descr: Czech Republic I would be much happier if those affiliated to AllPeers signin and let it be known of the potential conflict.

I added back the Firefox TOC - please do not remove - it allows navigation, and is on all Firefox extensions. The problem with layout is fixed. The main problem is the article - it is a stub. It is also an advert, without a single reference. Closed source proprietary is not Free Software - removed. The image was not a screenshot - commented out until a real screenshot is put in. Widefox 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from AllPeers

I'm affiliated with AllPeers. I'd rather leave it to the user community to edit this page as they wish, but I would like to know at least what we would have to do to get the "this is an advertisement" message off the article. What about it makes it read like an ad to you (note that as far as I know no one affiliated with AllPeers has contributed anything substantial to the article)? What kind of references do you want? I will also get someone to put up a proper screenshot.

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 I added back the Firefox TOC - please do not remove - it allows navigation, and is on all Firefox extensions. The problem with layout is fixed. The main problem is the article - it is a stub. It is also an advert, without a single reference. Closed source proprietary is not Free Software - removed. The image was not a [[screenshot]] - commented out until a real screenshot is put in. [[User:Widefox|Widefox]] 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
+== Question from AllPeers ==
+I'm affiliated with AllPeers. I'd rather leave it to the user community to edit this page as they wish, but I would like to know at least what we would have to do to get the "this is an advertisement" message off the article. What about it makes it read like an ad to you (note that as far as I know no one affiliated with AllPeers has contributed anything substantial to the article)? What kind of references do you want? I will also get someone to put up a proper screenshot.