Talk:Lanix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Material unsupported by given citations[edit]

A substantial amount of info. on this Lanix page is currently cited but not supported by those citations. Specifically, the 3D TV section. This material need to be removed, as no mention of Lanix is made in the citations supporting it. Fleetham (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The smartphone section as well is not supported by the given citations. In particular the "2 gigahertz processor of Lanix design" claimed can't be verified anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.192.55.206 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electronics companies in Latin America are not rare[edit]

This claim keeps being brought up be Fleetham and is unsourced. Here are several large Latin American electronics companies. Each has annual sales revenues over $1 billion.

In addition to these there are many smaller companies. Lanix, Posotivo, and Itautec are the most notable because they create their own technology and sometimes lisence it out.

Removal of uncited material[edit]

Most of the content on this page is uncited. I am challenging such content as untrue and contentious. Fleetham (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Lanix has a wide product line that includes many items found in households throughout the world." Yes, this is as contentious as a BLP violation. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please removed it! Fleetham (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, anyway, you have reverted many many times, so I recommend you to calm down. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if any of this is germane. I want to remove uncited material. Any objections? Fleetham (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe me because I don't know I am working in it? Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. Fleetham (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

If you care to look at [www.lanix.com], you'll see logo often appears without an orange border. Fleetham (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Take a look around that website. Look at the pictures. Look at this website: [1]
You see? The logo appears without a border. The logo is just the typeface. Fleetham (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lanix mobile is not Lanix. Furthermore, Lanix mobile logotype consist in two logos if you didn't notice it. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war/content dispute[edit]

I would like to resolve the issue that caused the page to be protected. Does anyone object to me challenging and removing uncited material? Fleetham (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You keep removing cited materials. Every other editor has been accepting the used citations as reliable except for you. Numerous editors have reached a concensous that they are fair citations and numeous editors have asked for you to cease your'e removal of this information. And your version has numerous grammatical and syntax errors. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which citations have been accepted as reliable by everyone except me? Fleetham (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the current ones used, such as the two citations used for the PS3, the links from SPK.LA, tecnomatico, El Observador, Smartphone videos, and the Lanix official websites. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus on the spk.la citation. It fails WP:BLOGS, and so it is unacceptable. Do you agree? Fleetham (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPK.LA is not a blog. It is a highly respected electronics and electronics culture news site which employs a multtitude of writers, filmers, industry insiders and persons specialized in the fields of electronics and holds interviews with persons inside the tech world and is given information from companies. In fact it is the largest electronics news site in Mexico and is respected across Latin America. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like a Spanish language group blog. This page shows its editorial board, and the main page says "Visualiza SPK en el modo blog", which translates to "visualize SPK in blog mode". So it refers to itself as a blog. WP:BLOGS says "personal or group blogs... are largely not acceptable as sources". Will you say SPK isn't a group blog? Fleetham (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a blog. If you click the "visualize SPK in blog mode" button then it switches to a different viewing mode which is based on the typical system blogs are viewed. I'm guessing you aren't a native speaker of Spanish and that may be why you thought this implied that it was a blog, which is no fault on your part. This blog view mode is meant for use on mobile devices as it's standard page layout is difficult o display for many mobile devices. It obtains information from companies and conducts exclusive interviews (see there Youtube channel). But no SPK is not a blog, it is a private media outlet. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a group blog what is it? It really looks like a group blog. It even says "blog" on the main page. WP:BLOGS says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Are the SPK contributors published elsewhere? Fleetham (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not a blog. They are paid authors, many of which are experts in their field, much the same way that IGN works. Infact if you look at their privacy policy you can see that they are part of the larger Sputnik group which is owned by the Mexican media company "Grupo Inhala S.A. de C.V." See here: http://www.spk.la/privacidad/. And just because the word blog (which is used in a context which dose not state that the website is a blog) is on their page dosent mean you can twist the word around to suit your interperetation. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't if the contributors are paid or not; it's editorial oversight. Commercial blogs are still blogs. WP:BLOGS says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Are the SPK contributors published elsewhere? WP:BLOGS also says, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so". Has a reliable 3rd-party publication published the same info? If so, let's cite that not SPK? Fleetham (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are simply wrong. The point is that SPK IS the premier Mexican electronics news website. If anyone would have this story it would be them. And they are a reliable third party publication. They are not bloggers but persons employed by Sputnik (SPK's parent company). Therefore this whole argument you are making is pointless as they recieve their information directly from Lanix. In fact here is an example where an SPK writer by the name of Gilberto was invited to the special closed door unveiling and presentation of the Lanix Titan Magnum Extreme at the Palacio de Hierrio headquarters in Mexico City, where he was granted acess to this system and information regarding it before the systems release and he even was able to converse with Lanix's head of strategic development who infact shared this information with him. You can even hear the Lanix employee say what is being refered too in the attatched video in the article. See herek: click here for article 75.80.58.122 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am not quoting, WP:BLOGS says if a site is not a blog, someone else will have said the same thing because it's important. If the info. is important, we wouldn't have to cite a contentious source, right?

So, can we just use another source? Fleetham (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting what im saying. SPK was granted special information by Lanix. Other sources have said the same thing but they all sourced their information from SPK. THERE IS VIDEO PROOF OF A LANIX OFFICIAL HIMSELF GIVING THIS INFORMATION TO SPK. THEY ARE THE MOST RELIABLE SOURCE FOR THESE MATTERS. WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS FACT???? 75.80.58.122 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The info. this site publishes is not an issue. The issue is editorial oversight. Blogs don't have editorial oversight, and that's why they are not WP:Reliable sources. Wikipedia policy (WP:BLOGS) says that if the info. is important, more than one person would say it. So, let's just find another citation. Why not just forget that site and find another with the same info? Fleetham (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are simply being rediculous. The information is being given directly by a Lanix employee. As i've said before, SPK isnt a blog and it does have oversight as it is a private news source and Mexican laws requires that news sources not publish information without oversignt. You're argument dose not carry weight and you are simply wrong. A multittude of users keep proving that you are wrong yet you persist out of stubborness. Numerous private sites have republished SPK's information Geektek, Compuguia. This is a perfect citation, and even carries a video of a high ranking Lanix employee stating the facts that this citation requires. You simply cannot say that this is not a good citation. LANIX'S HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT IS STATING THE INFORMATION TO SPK ON VIDEO. You are simply wrong. Accept it. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not the content on the site. The issue is: "is the site a blog?" It looks like a blog, it says "view in blog mode" on the front page, and the articles end with the quote, "blog comments powered by Disqus". So, the problem is not what the site publishes. The issue is is the site a blog.? Fleetham (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO all of those have been explained to you. The "view in blog mode" refers to a an alternative page layout to the website styled after blog layouts. And even if it were a blog, it still meets all the requirements that blogs need to be used as sources. And Disqus is the blog service that runs the comment box system which allows the site to network with blogs and social networks. IT IS NOT A BLOG. RE REREAD THE PREVIOUS POSTS. IF YOU CANNOT ACCEPT IT THEN THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. YOU ARE WRONG. AND THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED YET YOU THINK ONLY YOUR VIEW IS CORRECT DESPITE MULTIPLE EDITORS AND ADMINSTRATORS SAYING YOU ARE WRONG. AS THERE CONCENSOUS IS THAT YOU ARE WRONG AND IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT YOU ARE WRONG, YOU WILL SIMPLY BE REVERTED AND REPORTED SHOULD YOU VANDALIZE THE PAGE WITH EDIT WARRING 75.80.58.122 (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is a blog, we can still use it as a source if its contributors have been published in other publications, too. If the contributors to this contentious site have also written articles in other reliable, 3rd-party publications then we can say they are "experts" and use articles written by them no matter were those articles appear. So, the question is should we just forget about this particular site and find other sources as WP:BLOGS says, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so", or should we look for other articles in other sources written by the same contributors? 17:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You said, "And even if it were a blog, it still meets all the requirements that blogs need to be used as sources." I believe I have mentioned that requirement in my prior post. So you will provide other articles written by the contentious site's contributors? Fleetham (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will search for other citations as well but the SPK citations will do for now as SPK has been proven to be a reliable source. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why we are discussing this is because a consensus has not been reached. The site appears to be a blog. You say it isn't, but that's just your opinion. Let's just not use that source. WP:BLOGS says if the info. is important it will be published elsewhere. Is it? Fleetham (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the fact that everyone else reverts your constant edits makes it seem that there is the concencous that you are wrong. And SPK is a reliable source. You keeps saying it isnt' but it is. I can only repeat my self so many times. I will simply revert your edits if you delete the SPK citations or the information they give. You are not allowing others input and refuse to admit that you are wrong. SPK is a fine source and you just won't accept it. Should you continue to revert it you will be submitted for recommendation for bannishment. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that you refuse to provide other articles written by the contentious site's contributors so the site can pass WP:BLOGS? Fleetham (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few replies ago, i posted two articles from mexican websites which used SPK as a reliable source. I dont know where to find other things these writers have written but i will try. Either way, SPK has proven to be a reliable source so i will continue to ignore your claims that it is not a good source, as it covers wikipedia guidlines for use as a citation 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPK is primarily, written, run and was founded by Jorge Alor, a very well respected technology expert who has published numerous papers and founded 3 of Mexicos largest magazines: Sputnik, Atomix, and Sonika (Sonika's website has not been working for some reason for the last few weeks). The writers for SPK are writers from these magazines, primarily from Sputnik. I would say that this gives it verifeyability thats it's writers were experts in the fields of electronics and electronics culture. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the contributor's to this site are also published in reliable sources then we can consider them "experts" and use their articles even if they appear in a blog, etc. As an aside, I don't like it when you say things like, "SPK has proven to be a reliable source so i will continue to ignore your claims". I believe I have a valid argument. By saying I don't you're only being rude. Please be nice! Fleetham (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the rudeness. I mistook your comments for condescending remarks. But anyways, yes the SPK citations should hold up now. Hopefully this means we can use these in place of citations from other less trustable sources. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Thanks for apologizing. Fleetham (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users like Fleetham do not deserve I waste my time on them, if you want third opinions request for comments or as for one. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 02:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

content dispute: uncited content[edit]

I am hoping a consensus can be reached in regards to the uncited material. If it is uncited, I believe it should be removed. Any objections? Fleetham (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify each case and give the reason. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is there is no citation, and I am challenging it as untrue. Do you have a more specific objection or are we OK? Fleetham (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specify what in the article you want deleted. Specific parts of text. Because you have many times said you are only deleting uncited things but then deledte cited information and citations themselves. Please post what specific sentences and parts of text that you wich to get rid of here. The we can decide. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you object to removal of uncited material? Fleetham (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Give me specific examples first 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to remove all uncited material. Fleetham (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post what you are specifically planning to delete or i will not assume that you are doing this in good faith. You have a history of overzealously deleteing cited things when you say that you will only delete uncited information. Post the specific things you wish to delete. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All uncited material. I don't need to post it, as you can see it by viewing the Lanix page. Fleetham (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless you post exactly what text you wish to remove i can neither agree nor disagree as you seem to have ulterior motives and have done this type of thing in the past. That is, saying you are only going to remove "uncited materials" then you delete most of the page, including reliable ciations. Once again, i cannot agree or disagree until you submit to this page which text you specifically wish to remove. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Can you please try to be nicer? and 2. I'll just add [citation needed] tags after the lock expires, ok? Is that acceptable. or do you wish to perform more character assassination? Fleetham (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

content dispute: unreliable source[edit]

this page is used as a citation. I believe it fails WP:reliable sources. Does anyone object to it be removed per WP:reliable sources? Fleetham (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC) ? I think it does fine. Why do you think that it is not a reliable source? 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The site fails WP:Reliable sources. Fleetham (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we finished here or are there more objections? Fleetham (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this fails? After reading the wiki guidelines, It does not seem to fail to me. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCES states, "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria". This site is none of those, and so it is not an "ther reliable source". Fleetham (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the website was published from a University proffessor so i think it can check out 75.80.58.122 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. Sources should be "university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers". This website is clearly none of those. It fails WP:SOURCES, don't you agree? Fleetham (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Let me read up on the site that the citation came from a bit more first. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, that's a tentative agreement? Fleetham (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For now i think we should have an additional citation needed sticker on it. But we should not remove the information totally as i am certain that i can find a citation for it.75.80.58.122 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Is the source one of the following: a university-level textbook, a book published by respected publishing house, magazine, journal, or mainstream newspaper? Fleetham (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is as far as i can tell, the journal of a university professor. So wouldnt this fall under the respected journal category? 75.80.58.122 (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I don't know. I don't believe you understand the meaning of journal in this context. Are we finished here? Do you really need this source to be included? Why? Fleetham (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

content dispute: unreliable source[edit]

this page is used as a citation. I believe it fails WP:reliable sources. Does anyone object to it be removed per WP:reliable sources? Fleetham (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that it is from the website of a major shopping site why do you think that it is not a good citation. I doubt it would give incorrect information. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Reliable sources says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." laybystore.com.au has neither a reputation for fact-checking nor accuracy. Fleetham (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we finished here or are there more objections? Fleetham (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please present a source that states laybystore.com.au has a history of not checking its sources. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCES states, "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria". This site is none of those, and so it is not an "ther reliable source". Fleetham (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Layby is a respected mainstream Autralian store isnt it? 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what that means. Do you object to this source being removed per WP:SOURCES? Fleetham (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i object. As i have no reason to belive that it is posting incorrect information. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the site is none of the following: university-level textbook, a book published by respected publishing house, magazine, journal, and mainstream newspaper. Is your objection based on the assumption that the website is one of these acceptable sources? 20:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It is an electronic medium for a mainstream commercial interest. Just hold on for now. I'm trying to obtain a source from the Sony Corporate website regarding there factory in Baja California where PS3's for the Mexican market are built by Lanix. When i find it we can simply use that in place of this current citation 75.80.58.122 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said the source is "an electronic medium for a mainstream commercial interest". Does this mean you agree it should be removed per WP:SOURCES? Fleetham (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is from a major retail chain. I doubt that their information would be incorrect 75.80.58.122 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this website the only one publishing the information? If it's really true why can't you provide a more reliable source? A quick Google search for "Lanix PS3" turns up zero reliable sources. The first item is from "www.militaryphotos.net", and most of the other results are forum posts. Were this information true why are the only websites on the Internet to report it forums and one Australian ecommerce site? I'm sorry to tell you, but laybystore.com.au simply does not pass WP:SOURCES. Can you please be a bit more reasonable? Fleetham (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute: blogs[edit]

this video is cited as a source, but it fails WP:BLOGS. Any objections to it being removed per wp:blogs? Fleetham (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this would fall under a blog therefore it may be removed however the video gives us some good looks at the product. Nonetheless it should be deleted.75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blog citations[edit]

An IP has reverted my edit removing citations that I believe fail WP:BLOGS. The cited website appears to be a blog, and I don't know how an agreement on this issue can be reached. I propose removing the citations, as they fail WP:BLOGS. Fleetham (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects, I will remove these citations. I already did that, and the person who reverted my edit said that a consensus to include these citations had been reached. It has not. Fleetham (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to these citations being removed? Fleetham (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was determined that SPK.LA was a credible source. Are you refering to a different website? 75.80.58.122 (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oject to the SPK.LA citations being removed as it was already determined that they were credible. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did this happen? Let's just remove them until a consensus can be reached, ok? Fleetham (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I earlier gave all the evidence in a section above, that SPK.LA was a credible source. You were the only one who had a problem with it. Other editors reverted your removal of the SPK.LA citations too. Which therefore shows that the other editors don't agree with you either. There is no reason to remove them. I have gone over this before. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really do appreciate you responding. And there's not much in the way of information on Lanix, so SPK citations are better than no citations at all. Do you mind if I remove all the uncited info though? Especially the PS3 stuff? It could be true, but it shouldn't be on the page without a reliable citation. Fleetham (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the PS3 citatation can be removed until we can get a better one. I'm going to call the Sony factory in Baja California where they're built and see if they can direct me to a written source. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the citations I mean the material. The page shouldn't say "Lanix makes PS3s" when there's no reliable source. Fleetham (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've waited a while for a response. I haven't gotten any feedback, so I removed some stuff that is important enough to warrant citations if it is, in fact, true. I also removed some ad-like stuff and things that seemed like speculation to me. Let me know what you think. Fleetham (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:Notability?[edit]

I'm not sure this article passes WP:Notability. The only reliable, third-party source is a Spanish-lang. article about the company's providing computers to Mexican schools. I've looked for other sources, and they're hard to find if not non-existent. I have to conclude the article fails the "significant coverage" criterion of the WP:Notability's general notability guidelines. Fleetham (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, reviews and mentions in PC World, Compuguía, Infochannel and Ayacnet. Is that enough for you? --Odiseo79 (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's kind of a mixed bag. The Infochannel and Ayacnet are the kind of sources I'm looking for. PC World and Compuguía don't help at all because they don't talk about Lanix, as WP:Notability says, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail...". Would it be possible to provide more sources like the first two I mentioned? Doing that would go far towards establishing the company's notability. Fleetham (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here we go again. Check please here, here, here and here. Can we please move on?. It is a well stablished mexican computer manufacturer and it's covered by the major press in Mexico. Now if you have a personal issue with that, that's another story. --Odiseo79 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding more. While I'm not sure that those links which are simply reviews of Lanix products help determine notability (notability is different than existence; we know Lanix exists, but simply being a Mexican maker of computers and mobiles isn't necessarily notable per the definition of that word at WP:Notability.), I think a good way to determine notability would be finding citations that support some of the uncited claims the page makes. For example, someone added "Lanix has seen sustained growth since 2005", and that Lanix has the 3rd or 4th largest market share in Latin America's consumer electronics sector. If you could find sources that support such assertions, those would really help determine notability. As WP:Notability says, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail...", and so reviews of Lanix products or a single mention in passing really can't be considered "significant coverage". Do you understand? I don't want to be rude because you've gone to all that trouble, but proof of existence doesn't automatically mean a topic deserves an article. Fleetham (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --186.30.193.145 (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Lanix is in effect an electronics manufacturer company, builds PCs and Smartphones based in Hermosillo, Sonora, México. Manufacturing plants include México and Chile. Lanix in 2011 is expanding to Colombia and Perú. A view of manufacturing facility in Hermosillo can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14tRGoXWi7g Please advice in changes that might be needed, I would be able to collaborate.[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --186.30.193.145 (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Link to CNNExpansión article from MX main topic here is Lanix Ultraslim model. http://www.cnnexpansion.com/tecnologia/2009/08/21/laptop-mexicana-compite-con-superslims[reply]

Is the page spam?[edit]

Uncited claims inflate the company's importance

Lead section: "[It] is also an original equipment manufacturer (OEM)... [and] also an international original design manufacturer (ODM)"

History section: "The company... is a rival of Brazil's Positivo Informatica for the third-largest share of this region's [Latin America] consumer electronics market."

Electric hardware section: "As of 2010, Lanix makes LED & LCD, televisions, semiconductors, DRAM, SDRAM, flash memory systems, hard disk drives, organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays, desktop computers, tablet computers, netbooks, laptop computers, smartphones, DVD and Blu-ray Disc drives, servers and wireless routing systems."

  • Please note that from the company's front page, it appears to assemble PCs. This official source only lists (more than halfway down the page, under "Important figures") "PCs, laptops and servers" under "equipment sold in 2005". And I doubt a company with less than 500 employees (same official source) has the wherewithal to purchase LED, LCD, and OLED display-making equipment, etc.

Electric hardware section: "While Lanix produces a full range of desktops and other electronic devices, it specializes in ultra high end desktop computers."

Smartphones section: "...Lanix Kip which is for the Latin American, Chinese and developing markets as a competitor for mid level, full featured smartphones from the likes of Sony, Samsung, Nokia, ZTE, and Huawei."

OEM activities section: "In 2006, Lanix started building electronics in Mexico on behalf of Sony using the firm's own components. Lanix is very secretive about its OEM activities to keep its clients' designs and data secure."

Much of the information is not supported by given source

Lead section:"It won an Intel award for best integration of Intel technology into a mobile phone in 2011"

  • The source, this youtube video, seems to be shot at the 2009 Intel Solutions Summit. It shows (1:30) an award that says "Lanix" and "Mobile Solution", but does not explain why the award was presented to the company. The Lanix spokeperson says they made a "mobile computer". Intel provides these awards to its "channel partners".

History section: "In 1990, Lanix began making semiconductors, and light-emitting diodes (LED)"

  • Lanix appears to assemble computers and make mobile phones. It's more an HP than a Foxconn. Machine translation of a Lanix source says "1990: Lanix began operations in Hermosillo, Sonora, with 20 employees. That year in Mexico launched its first product, PC Lanix 286..."

History section: "Lanix has announced plans to enter the global market by 2012, and an ambitious plan to gain a 40% market share in the quickly growing Latin American consumer electronics market by 2014."

  • The source provided is the company's front page (http://www.lanix.cl/). It does not support the claim.

Mexican government contracts section: "Lanix has won several contracts to provide electronics to the Mexican Federal Police, Mexican Army, Mexican Navy Satmex, and the Mexican space agency, AEXA and many government entities in Mexico."

  • A company source says, "With a long history and extensive experience in the public sector, Lanix has become one of the most significant technology brands in support of various government projects related to technology"
The sources fail WP:Sources
1/14th of the provided sources seem to pass WP:SOURCES. (It's the one at the very bottom.) The others are either official Lanix websites or self-published sources.
Tablet PC section
There is a relatively large section, supported by self-published sources, about tablet PCs that makes the reader think Lanix sells such products. There is a similar sentence in the Smartphone section about android phones. From its product page, the company does not appear to sell a tablet computer (or an android phone, see the Lanix mobile product page) but may have shown one at a tradeshow.
Conclusion

The errors and misrepresentations are enough to give the average reader an impression of Lanix that is not borne out after further research. Good citations are hard to find, and those that exist are in Spanish. The page needs, at least, substantial pruning to prevent misrepresenting the company as a North American Foxconn or Elcoteq. Lanix may aspire to be an EMS company; it does have a mobile phone division, and many electronics (including flat-panel displays) are manufactured in Mexico. But the evidence we do have makes it appear that the company's main business is the assembly of PCs. Why I believe the page needs changes is because I doubt the average reader would come away from the page with that impression. If I am wrong, and Lanix is a fully fledged EMS company, the burden of proof is on those who want to represent the company as such. Fleetham (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Fleetham that those claims are not well sourced. What we know with the sources privided is that Lanix is a mexican PC Assembler with a mobile phone division and nothing more. I think the claim that they manufacture LED's, OLED's, DRAM and SDRAM need better sources. Fleetham, most of the sources will be in spanish, since it's a mexican company with a chilean subdivision; that should not be a problem. The claims that they sell tablet PC's and Android phones are very dubious too. We need better sources to sustain those claims. What we do know is that Lanix is the main computer assembler in Mexico and that by itself makes it notable. I hope we can reach a consensus starting from here, and please Fleetham, try not to add controversial tags as the speedy deletion one without talking with us first. I promise not to commit any changes until consensus has been reached. --Odiseo79 (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a closer reading of WP:Notability if you believe being a Mexican assembler of PCs, even the sole domestic assembler of PCs, asserts notability. Can we come to a consensus that uncited and poorly cited claims need to be removed? Or is this controversial? Fleetham (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read WP:Notability several times and I have shown you a lot of sources that prove Lanix receives a wide coverage by the media in Mexico. I have no problem with provide you more: see here, here, here and here. The notability, I insist is well established. And no, I don't think removing uncited or poorly cited claims be controversial. What do you think if we add a "refimprove" tag in top of those sections and we give those editors time to sustain those claims before remove them?. --Odiseo79 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's try that. Would a few weeks be a long enough time to wait? And yes, it's sources that determine notability. I commented because I thought you meant being the sole domestic assembler of PCs was what asserted the article's notability. Fleetham (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. A couple of weeks should be enough time for them to provide more, reliable sources. In the meantime, why don't you tag the sections that contain those claims?. I will back you up if they challenge the tagging. --Odiseo79 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to confirm, you have no problem removing the sections that are uncited and poorly cited, i.e, blog citations, after we tag and wait? Is there any part of the controversial material that I first mentioned that you feel should be kept even if we can't find a reliable citation to support it? Fleetham (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't have any problem with that and indeed I think it's needed. I feel this should be the version if they don't provide the sources we are asking for (of course without the notability tag). What do you think?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiseo79 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time to remove those claims that come from only one source and that don't appear even in the own company's homepage. What do you think? --Odiseo79 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been, like, 10 days, so sure I guess. I don't think anyone will be adding citations. Fleetham (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the version you proposed includes all current, reliable citations that are on the page. Perhaps we should make a new version to replace the current page with? If we do, I think this source should be included, as it says what Lanix is--"a world-class PC, notebook and server manufacturer". Fleetham (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed the page because I didn't get a response on my above idea. Fleetham (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. I like this version. It's clean and contains only what the sources available say. Altough I think the picture of the mobile phone wouldn't do no harm. --Odiseo79 (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Lanix manufacture android phones?[edit]

Ok, there is only one source that says so. Nowhere in the Lanix' homepage says they manufacture android smartphones. So that itself makes the claim very dubious. We need at least a couple of extra sources. What do you think? --Odiseo79 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have had some on display at trade shows and the Illium is already reportedly being sold contract free at Telcel stores but their website dosen't display the Illium as being on sale. However Lanix advertisments shipped with newspapers also are stating that the Android powered Illium is for sale. Here is an online copy [2]. Mexican tech show Nerdcore 123 also had a guest appearance by an Lanix official showing off the Ilium, see here [3]. The Mexican magazine Sputnik also had an article about the Lanix Ilium, an electronic version of the article is available on their website SPK.LA at http://www.spk.la/2010/09/una-tablet-y-un-smarphone-las-dos-sorpresas-que-tiene-lanix-para-esta-navidad/ . The whole situation is quite confusing. 69.235.205.98 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I removed the mention of android altogether when I reverted the page. If Lanix themselves don't find it terribly important to mention that they currently offer that OS, perhaps it's because they don't currently offer that OS? Fleetham (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess that Facebook page was from "Lanix themselves". My mistake. Fleetham (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fleetham. If they themselves don't mention the OS in their own homepage and it's so difficult to find sources that mention the android OS in Lanix' smartphones it is perhaps because they don't offer it. So I think this information is speculative to say the least, and of course it's not encyclopedic. Unless of course we can find more sources. --Odiseo79 (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about the SPK.LA citation though? Which i've explained before is not a blog and even if you want to claim it is, it still passes the certifiability claim as it's writers are the same writers in the identical Sputnik Magazine publication of which SPK.LA is simply the online version of. 69.235.205.98 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, if the writers of the website also write for the magazine, the website is an acceptable source. Fleetham (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we can mention that they sell one model of android smartphone?. It's ok with both of you? --Odiseo79 (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, fine with me. Sorry for not checking back before editing. 69.235.205.98 (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to add content supported by reliable citations, please do so. Please don't revert the page to an earlier version. Fleetham (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This earlier version is in fact only a modified version. I deleted what was uncited and causing problems. If you read it now you will notice that only claims with citations reamain. There is absolutely no reason to revert my last edit. 69.235.205.98 (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with some of the claims you've made, like these:

- That Lanix "makes televisions, semiconductors, DRAM, SDRAM, flash memory systems, hard disk drives, DVD and Blu-ray Disc drives, and wireless routing systems." no where in your sources or in Lanix' homepage says so. - That Lanix makes "the Lanix Titan Magnum Extreme, the most powerful production Windows desktop in the world". Your source indeed says that is a powerful desktop, but NOT the most powerful production desktop in the world- - That "Lanix is one of only Two Mexican electronics companies make Android the others being Zonda Telecom and Kyoto Electronics". Your source only says that Kyoto electronics manufactures android phones, but not Lanix. You need sources pal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiseo79 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's their webpage saying they manufacture DVD drives and hard disks [4], they're AIO series of computers function dually as televsions as stated here on the Lanix website[5] as do all of their current range of LED monitors. Ironically El Palacia de Hierro stores sell their LED monitors soley as televisions despite them functioning primarily as monitors. Regarding the semiconductors, and RAM they don't have the page about those up anymore so i'm fine with removing those two claims until i can find a source for that. I can't find citations for it currently but take apart any Lanix computer and you'll see they are Lanix made. And there are already citations in the article that identify Lanix as a manufacturer of android phones so I didn't think it was neccesarry to add them to that sentence as well but i'll do that if you want. Pvt.Billinghurst (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding citations. You're so helpful! Fleetham (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the recente edits Fleetham, I was just gonna point out those unsourced claims. --Odiseo79 (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lanix KIP.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Lanix KIP.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting cited edits[edit]

Fleetham, you must stop reverting these edits. They are cited, most of them are from the official Lanix website and the others are also from dependable sources. You are outright lying saying that there is a consensus to delete this information. You have demonstrated this behavior in the past. It is unacceptable. No concensus was reached stating that it should be deleted. If you revert it again I am going to notify and administrator and request you to be blocked. 76.208.175.3 (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content you are adding is not supported by citations. Fleetham (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fleetham that is a blatant lie. All of what I am adding is cited! Look at them yourself! 76.208.175.3 (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make changes, please take more care that the citations you provide actually support the claims you make. Some of the assertions you added are unsupported by given citation. These include: "Lanix won an award for best integration of Intel technology into a mobile phone.", "Lanix makes televisions", etc. While I will revert the entire edit, I encourage you to edit the page again. But this time please do so more carefully! Thanks Fleetham (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those two citations actually do confirm that. You are not making sense. Fleetham if you have a problem with a section of text then it is your responsibility to only remove that one part, not revert the entire article including other information. 99.8.4.35 (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to add to the page, but please make sure your citations support the material you add. Thanks, Fleetham (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from adding misleading and poorly cited material. For example the claim "Lanix makes tvs" is supported by a product page for an all-in-one PC/monitor. The statement "Lanix is the biggest Mexican electronics manufacturer" is not only misleading, but the only source we have for the much more likely claim that it is the largest domestically owned Mexican electronics manufacturer is Lanix itself. Fleetham (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you would actually read the citation it says that lanix all in one computers function as televisions. Lanix monitors viewable in the PDF files also funtion as televisions as well. The Lanix corporate history also explicitly states that Lanix is the lagest electronics manufacturer in the nation. This is not at all misleading. Obviously a Mexican owned company would probably be the largest electronics manufacturer in Mexico. You are the one being misleading. You keep deleting the information which states that Lanix makes LED and LCD monitors. The citations are links to the Lanix website which show a range of different LED and LCD screens which the company makes yet you keep deleting this citation and the information. You also have deleted the cited infomation that Lanix makes netbooks. You keep reverting the page and inserting you're own speculation that Lanix started off making LED's which is unsourced and not true. You also put a citaion needed sticker over the claim that Lanix made the PC286 and when citations from the Lanix website were added you deleted it! You need to stop removing citations and manipulating information to suit your own viewpoints 99.8.4.35 (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Lanix makes computers with TV tuner cards, then Lanix does not make televisions; it makes computers with TV tuner cards. So say the latter not the former. A consensus to remove misleading material has been reached. It's also misleading to say, "Lanix is the largest Mexican electronics maker" when the Lanix website says, "Today Lanix is the largest domestic manufacturer of computers" (Hoy en día, LANIX es el más grande fabricante nacional de computadoras). Please respect the consensus and refrain from adding misleading content. Fleetham (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fleetham. They don't sell them as tv's, they sell them as computer monitors, they don't qualiify as tv's. Also, saying "Lanix is the largest Mexican electronics maker" is misleading because HP México and Dell México are larger than Lanix, just to mention a few. --Odiseo79 (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not wholly Mexican owned. I agree that the text should be changed though. It should read "Lanix is the largest Mexican owned manufacturer of computers." Also a true definition of a teleision set is the following "Modern televisions consist of a display, antenna or radio frequency (RF) input (a TV aerial plug or an F connector), and a tuner. The existence of a television tuner (nowadays, a digital television tuner) in a display device distinguishes it from a monitor — which receives signals that are already processed." These Lanix monitors do infact include all of these systems built in. As does the All in one computer being used in the citation which makes it a true televison. I own a Lanix AIO 22 and it has full functionality as a televsion straight out of the box just like the citation states. I see no way that they cannot be considered televisions. Pvt.Billinghurst (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's rather obvious why an all-in-one computer with a TV tuner shouldn't be considered equivalent to a television. Some mobile phones have TV tuners and TV antenna--but no one would say a manufacturer of such devices "makes mobile phones and TVs".
Lanix does not make computers and televisions; some of the computers it makes have TV tuners. Fleetham (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their monitors also have full television capabilities to though. These themselves wouldbe considered televisions. The text off the current edit states only this Pvt.Billinghurst (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'm worried about is misleading people by saying Lanix makes computers and televisions. I reverted your edit, but retained the information we discussed. Fleetham (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is misleading. I changed the text from saying that they manufacture televisions to "television capable computers and monitors". That is exactly what they are so I can't see how this is misleading.Pvt.Billinghurst (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not misleading. But please be careful when you revert: your revert added more misleading information, so it might be better just to edit a section than to revert. Fleetham (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added more citations to the tablet claim. That is not misleading at all. Your current stated some uncited information and deleted citations.Pvt.Billinghurst (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we addressed the TV tuner card issue, so I don't understand why you continue to make reverts. If you have concerns, please discuss them (and elaborate on those you have already) here. I'd be happy to hear them. Fleetham (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We did. My edit states "television capable displays and computers". You have no reason to revert the article. In addition I keep adding citations and deleting uncited information but you keep deleting it. Explain why you are doing that please. And you need to stop saying a concensus has been reached. You say that every edit even when the issue is yet to see a concensus. Pvt.Billinghurst (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I did address your concerns, why do you continue to revert the page? I really don't understand, so if you could talk in specifics instead of generalities that might help. What do you mean when you say, "I keep adding citations and deleting uncited information", for example? Fleetham (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first two lines of the history section is incorect information which is uncited and there is some correct information which is uncited. I deleted the incorrect information and added a citation to the correct information but you deleted it. You also keep deleting new citations i added for the tablet PC. You're edit is poorly written to begin with. I see no reason for you to revert my edit. Please explain why you keep reverting it. Pvt.Billinghurst (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make clear that there is no reason to revert the article as it stands. The uncited material in the lead conforms to WP:LEAD, which states, "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". Everything else is properly cited and conforms to Wikipedia policies.
If you would like to contribute to the page, please allow me to suggest you do so without first reverting the page. That's the polite thing to do, as reverting is not considered desirable behavior on Wikipedia. See WP:3RR.
Thanks, Fleetham (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should remind you that you are a habitual violater of the 3RR rule and have been banned multiple times for it. You are being very hypocritical and your behavior is being impolite! You have deleted cited information and inserted pure conjecture. Infact you have already broken the 3RR rule today! 75.80.58.122 (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion[edit]

It's not clear from the reverts and from the aged discussion above which points are in active dispute. Is it just the "largest domestic manufacturer" claim or are there other, non-trivial problems? Can one of you make a list of the disputed text to start? Kuru (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that Lanix's first product was the "first personal computer made in large numbers by a domestic [Mexican] firm that saw widespread [domestic] sales" is not only uncited–it's possibly untrue. The early history of Lanix is unfathomable. Fleetham (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find a source for that in any of the commercial or industry databases I have access to. I also could not find it on the corporate site, but for a contested industry claim, I would need a third party reference. I'll reach out to the other editors who have not responded here yet. Kuru (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The early history of the company is not at all unfathomable. Here is a link to the Lanix official website [6] which has a detailed history of the company. I have attempted to post this but Fleetham kept removing it. Fleetham edited the page so it says Lanix didn't develop this until 1995 while they developed it way back in 1990. I don't understand why you did that? 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally the Lanix article text used to be an almost a total copy of it's business report from Allbusiness which can be seen here [7], which also claims that it is Mexico's largest computer manufacturer. 75.80.58.122 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see support for "first personal computer made in large numbers by a domestic [Mexican] firm that saw widespread [domestic] sales" at the AllBusiness link or the corporate site link you gave. Could you point to the specific line that supports this claim? You seem to be contesting two other claims - let's sort them out one by one. Do you have any sources for the "first personal computer" claim? Kuru (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that should be removed as there is no claim for that. It should state only that it is the first Lanix computer, as the first citation states not that it was the first major Mexican computer. I wasn't the one who added that it was the first computer made in Mexico75.80.58.122 (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it seems we're all in agreement on that one. I've started a section below to document consensus changes. Let's move on. The other change you allude to is the "It names itself Mexico's largest domestically owned computer manufacturer" vs. "It is Mexico's largest domestically owned computer manufacturer". The "it names itself" or "it claims" is correct with the cite given, since this is a primary source. The AllBusiness link, however, provides a more definitive statement. Fleetham, do you have any problems with that source? Kuru (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has Fleetham left you any messages regarding this? I'd really like to resolve this and improve the page ASAP 75.80.58.122 (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus edits to current version[edit]

  1. Remove "Sold in Mexico, it was the first personal computer made in large numbers by a domestic firm that saw widespread sales." as unsourced.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lanix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Lanix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lanix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lanix&oldid=1208095518"