User talk:KeepInternetSafe&Clean
December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia site who are these guys that says all these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. WuhWuzDat 15:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If you don' accept the saying of those two websites and comments of some programmers in Wikipedia, what you consider, smartpants, a reliable source?
Is this a reliabble source?
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 Wikipedia policies; IS THAT RIGHT Wikipedia?! 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 Wikipedia'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 Talk 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)