From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Blogging (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Blogging, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tell me, what makes commercial? Pelikoira (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is commercial in that it is privately funded and held by a limited liability company. --devnet (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove the blog post quotes?[edit]

I personal Think the Blog post quotes Bloat the article and is not very Encyclopedic Speer320 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the blog post and I've made this more Encyclopedic --devnet (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

is something wrong with it is a parked godaddy page now :-( —Preceding Theundesided (talk)

GoDaddy isn't being nice to today. The site is up, it's just that the DNS hasn't resolved correctly in some parts of the world. --Rob Loach (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Content Updated[edit]

Page should be more encyclopedic now. RCourtade (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a directory[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. The list of every supported site and 3rd party applications does not belong here. (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Objective Viewpoint of Someone Inquiring What Ping.FM is[edit]

I came here looking to find out what is and if it is reputable. What I found was simply a complete, in some ways overly self-serving but not obnoxious or untrue or biased posting--just elaborate specs--but ones that are useful to the inquiring wikipedian.

But this concept that it is commercial and thus should be removed would apply to ten thousand other posts and really appears itself to be posted by an opponent of or an overzealous wikipedian. I have seen a reference to approximately 20 times, and it is thus something we need to know about, without a big warning sign posted by one or two people trying a little too hard to be important by discrediting the post. Of all the evils we need to be protected from, this article isn't one of them, and is less of a concern to me than overzealous wikipedians filtering knowledge of use of the exact type to which I turn to wikipedia. Songs and TV episodes are on here. On a scale of 1-10, concerns on this article don't warrant 1. Thank you to the posters for letting me know about, regardless of who they were. No, I am not an affiliate, just a web developer, web promoter, and web educator by trade. As such, there was no fact on that page that may not be useful to me in a cursory overview or decision to investigate further or decide whether or not to use it.

In short, the article passes the simple test: It provided me with the information I needed.

Designalife (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)designalife

Recent Data Loss[edit]

Can we add a section related to the recent outage and loss of 5 days worth of data including shortened URLs? Davidron (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Davidron


" is powered by LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) with some .NET used in the core software." Is there a source for this? Daniel15 (Talk/Contribs) 14:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)