Talk:Nokia C6-00

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

CNet comments section[edit]

I deleted this section because the comments from CNet admins and C6 Users are strongly disputed. Wikipedia is encyclopedic which requires neutrality. This involves the personal reflection from the admins only. But I can firmly say one thing that the CNet admins are wrong. Symbian^1 should not be spotted as a retarded platform. On the other hand, there is a software called Nokia Software Updater to update the firmware.
Regards,
Claudeemann. --ZirconiumTwice (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Em.. Strongly disputed by who? The Reviews of major tech sites such as CNET are a normal part of building an article on tech. If you are saying that CNET is not a WP:RS with editorial control, then please explain why. That *you* don't like the reviews is original research and removing sourced content again without showing how the source is unreliable will be be seen as vandalism. So I'd ask you explain further your strange statements. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The C6 users. [1][2] See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. --ZirconiumTwice (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
We take no account of user generated content - the C6 users are irrelevant in this context, they are not considered a reliable source. Also you seem to have misunderstood NPOV, that requires *us* to be neutral in how we write articles, it does not require us to balance out five terrible reviews with five good ones or if five good ones don't exist, remove the bad ones. Do you understand the difference? --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
No. The Cnet reviewers wrote pros and cons, not only cons. The review you wrote is only on the negative side. It made the article not neutral. --ZirconiumTwice (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm relying on the summaries at the end of the reviews - getting into the individual pros and cons seems misleading to me. The reviews for the phone are mediocre, so any article is going to reflect that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyway it's a bit rich having a lecture on NPOV off a C6 owner and someone who has SYMBIAN slapped over the top of the wikipedia logo on their talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Do not attack editors, please. By the way, Cnet Asia didn't spot the phone basic. Therefore I say it's not neutral. --ZirconiumTwice (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
And I never added that, so why you continue to lecture me about it, I'm not sure. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I paraphrased the "basic" from the balanced CNET Asia review that wrote "Those looking for a capable QWERTY smartphone without all the bells and whistles.... " Do you think that was inaccurate paraphrasing? Andries (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Everything is ok now. --ZirconiumTwice (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Memory Capacity[edit]

I think the memory section on the left side box is incorrect: I own a Nokia C6-00, and within X-Plore 1.58, the "Total Memory" displays 120.8 MB, which I assume is the RAM; rounded up would be 128 mega-bytes. Also, this memory section mentions NAND.., but isn't NAND non-volatile flash memory, and non-related to random-access memory? So, I wanted to confirm this fact before I change anything. ...perhaps my device is different, with a lower amount of RAM?! Am I wrong? Thanks!

I just confirmed that the RAM is 128 MB: Nokia C6-00 Specifications. I thought that Nokia does not make their device specifications public, but I guess I am wrong.

So, I will be clearing up the details in the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.141.43 (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)