Talk:Sol (laptop)

(Comments)

Concerning User:The Banner edit. There's no reason to call a photovoltaic computer spam. In fact, this is about the company product and very good that it's here. See for example: Microsoft, Apple, Inc, Google, whatever. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The guy is promoting a product while the article is about the company. Secondly, the sentence is double as there is already stated that the laptop is solar powered. It happens more often that a solar powered device has a device to harness the power of the sun into electric power. The Banner talk 11:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at Microsoft article? That's not a promotion, that's informational sentence. Besides, it's obvious that the company article should contains informations about its products. I rewrote it a little. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

User:The Banner, please stop your unnecessary reverts and let's quietly talk on it! --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I do quietly talk about it: adding product information in an article not about that product is SPAM. You can add the features in an article about the laptop, but it is irrelevant in the article about the company. The Banner talk 11:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong. Please, take a look at any of the articles I've mentioned. You see there many info about products, Windows, Xbox, IE... --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Every article is judged on its own merits...

And Microsoft and Google are slightly bigger than the one-product-company WeWi. I doubt if WeWi is even notable enough for a place on Wikipedia and I challenge you write an article about their laptop that stands the notability test. The Banner talk 12:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

And there is no need to mention the operating system of a laptop (and mention the laptop in the article about the operating system) unless you want to promote the laptop.

There is not need to mention a photovoltaic array on the computer (it is already mentioned that it is solar powered) unless you want to promote the product by adding as much wikilinks as you can find. The Banner talk 12:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You exaggerating. I don't understand. This sentence has at least 2 or 3 refs, so it's absolutely notable. A single sentence is not big enough to be a separate article, that's why it's only a section. So what's the problem? Let's wait until someone else joins the discussion, I have no strength. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not exaggerating. But you and your friends are turning this company-article into an advertisement for a product. That is the problem. The Banner talk 12:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Calm down, what kind of friends? It's only your opinion. Just other users have a different opinion than you. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

By now four different people are promoting the laptop. But the company is still of shaky notability. The Banner talk 12:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Not spam. As a somewhat outside third-party, I must say I disagree with "The Banner" on this one, who seems the editor adamant to remove it. Many companies have one notable product (see the article flagship product although I hate the term since it has nothing to do with a flagship!). It makes more sense to have a combined article on the company and its product, until it gets large enough to merit separate ones. Wikilinks between related articles are not "promotion". Promotion is wording like saying "This great product can be purchased here http://....". Just stating verifiable facts about a product is not promotion. Although neutral sources are certainly preferred, it should be acceptable to cite sources that are promotional, as long as the content is paraphrased into neutral tone. This is a for-profit company after all and they presumably have marketing people, so it should be no surprise that sources might be promotional - this happens all the time and we need to have a reasonable compromise. I do think that mentioning the operating system is quite relevant. It is a verifiable fact about the product and one makes it somewhat unusual. Removing sourced information from Wikipedia is not always an improvement. W Nowicki (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

The article has been almost deleted by some unknown (I can only imagine it was a friend of The banner as right after the vandalism act by the unknown, the Banner step in and added a delete tag. What is up with this guy? Is there no possible to have a reasonable discussion with him?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSNR (talk • contribs) 01:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sour grapes? But the reason that I found the article was because of the links to disambiguation pages (DPL bot!). Nothing else. The Banner talk 03:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW: You have to rewrite the article to make de laptop the subject. The Banner talk 03:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, so you can remove more stuff about the computer and call operating system and computer features "spam" (despite other editors telling you it isn't.) It appears you have zero knowledge in electronics. I suggest you focus editing stuff about food which you seem to know more about, instead of editing articles you obviously lack the understanding on their subject matter. ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSNR (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.221.192 (talk)

Aha, out of arguments and now using personal arguments. You loose, dude. The Banner talk 09:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC) But If you don't edit that article, I have to do it. And I don't think you will like that.

Grow up, child. Merely stating the obvious that it seems you have zero understanding in technology so you should focus on editing articles you understand, whichever they may be. I lose? (p.s, that's the correct spelling of 'lose', not loose... Yet another fine example why you shouldn't attempt editing articles in the first place) - I think not. Thus far everything you've done was countered and ridiculed by other editors, including your request to delete this article. So it appears you're the one who've lost, imbecile. DSNR talk 12:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL, you really give me the idea that I am dealing with the WeWi-marketing department here and that you are seriously unhappy with my spam-busting actions. Sorry to give you grief but Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion. The Banner talk 02:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Everybody here already told you it's not spam. You're the only editor here that thinks that. Not a marketing department of any sort, again you're wrong. DSNR talk 12:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This edit war between DSNR and TheBanner is getting cumbersome. On one hand, @DSNR needs to add to the article things which were suggested by other users. On the other @TheBanner should stop questioning the notability of this machine. Sol is an exciting device for the Linux community and you have no right to keep questioning it or taking it out from the Ubuntu page. LondonLinux talk 12:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I requested a sockpuppet investigation against you, DSNR and Rezonansowy. The Banner talk 19:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL - By all means kiddo. Let them investigate and show you've wasted everyone's time. There's nothing to worry about. DSNR talk 17:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think this article shoudl split some info to WeWi article ank keep separate info about Sol, we shouldn't mix them here. @DSNR: - could you help with splitting. Thanks! --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 10:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Rezonansowy:I will keep improving the article when time permits but it's hard when I constantly have to fight the banner when he's removing content about Sol calling it spam. --DSNR (talk • contribs) 10:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The last AfD detemined that WeWi as company is not notable. That is why it was moved to Sol (Laptop). But of course, the owner and founder of the company will see this otherwise. The Banner talk 11:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments

It is not promotional to add information about the company on the product page or vica versa. What is promotional is creating two separate articles when the norm is to combine information about the product and the company that develops/sells it onto a single page. Most high-quality articles about a product, software or video game have a "Background" or "Development" section that talks about the company.

However, what is promotional is describing what a product is intended to do, rather than what it actually does, or describing its benefits, rather than what it is. Also, we do not need the technical specs on Wikipedia, as those are better suited for a company fact sheet or buyer's guide. The article is too focused on product features as oppose to a historical reference work. CorporateM (Talk) 18:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Funny thing is that those technical specifications effectively cut the article in two, in a way reinforcing the suggestion that there are two articles in one here. I'm going to start by removing that company infobox: the article is on a product, not on a company, and an infobox (they aren't required in the first place) adds nothing of value in terms of content (it can't). Drmies (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I gave the article a once-over for copyediting, crystal ball and consolidating a couple sub-sections. But I think we may be splitting hairs here. The article looks ok. It could use more historical content. Like when it was first released and any version revs. A picture would be awesome. CorporateM (Talk) 23:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

article name

Can I ask why this article is not Sol (laptop)? Disambiguation should be lowercase. Elizium23 (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. DGG is an experienced user who made the move. Maybe it was a typo? Ivanvector (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Renamed to Sol (laptop). Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

yes, thanks for fixing the error. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Engadget review, 24 April 2014

Fairly detailed review posted today: http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/24/sol-solar-laptop-hands-on/ - I don't have time to work on the article now but someone else could take a shot. Ivanvector (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And another, a little older: http://www.g-layer.com.au/sol-laptop-is-coming-soon/ Ivanvector (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

SPAM

This is GROSS SPAM plus probably SCAM. Does anyone here have purchased one of these? All the evidence we have is a ONE low quality review article *in three years.*

Nonetheless, no relevant specialized media have reviewed it and no relevant market does sell it. Not even a relevant person in the Linux scene have checked it. *NOBODY USES IT*.

And LinuxLondon and David Snir, the owner of that one man company, is way too obvious the same person.

This shouldn't be in Wikipedia. 95.16.146.53 (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This article survived two WP:AFD nominations in 2013. If you want to nominate it again, I guess you have that right, but you'd need to tip the consensus the other way. Elizium23 (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Both prior AfD discussions were nominated by the same person with no substantive rationale and both resulted in a landslide Keep. Taking a look at some of the sources in the article, it's quite obviously notable. Though, the poster is right in that I was not immediately able to find any quality reviews, which is unfortunate. I removed the Notability tag, as it's already been established repeatedly that notability is not an issue. CorporateM (Talk) 19:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Correction: this article is nominated for deletion only once. It was the non-notable parent company that was nominated first and then redirected here. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeWi. If my rationale "advertising" was not valid, why was that article redirected? Get your facts in order, mr. CorporateM. The Banner talk 23:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Mr IP95etc.: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DSNR/Archive The Banner talk 23:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I DON'T want this article deleted, I want people warned. By virtue of sitting here on Wikipedia this long it has provided an aura of tech innovation legitimacy to this computer which may or may not exist, but certainly since its online store opened, it has not actually being delivered to people who paid for it. (Yet they keep upgrading the site and the Facebook page, supposedly the marine version is available now too.) Instead of deletion, it needs to be revised to warn people the company is either failing or scamming us, but I have no idea how to do this, I don't want to do anything that looks like vandalism, but I don't have time to figure out how to do this on Wikipedia.

I bought a top end Sol Laptop (with ball the bells and whistles, upgrades & extras) in December 2014 but still have not received it. I'm a Canadian, I thought it was a great idea to support a Canadian innovator who created a solar laptop running free software. After a year of being strung along with successive tales of startup, production and distribution difficulties, in part because I really wanted a solar powered laptop, I finally decided enough was enough. I didn't want to make waves and cause them problems, so I gave them a chance, so until recently I have been quiet about this online. I called and asked for a refund and was promised one. More than once. The phone number I was calling stopped working, and the other one now only has voicemail for David Snir, who I have left messages and email for. Looking at the Facebook page it's clear this is not just me, other people have been trying to get their money back longer on Facebook. Maybe the Sol laptop is real, but maybe its just a 3D printed fake. More unhappy customers (marks? victims?) have left complaints on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/WeWi-Telecommunications-Inc-559496344163107/?fref=ts and on G+ here: https://plus.google.com/+FranciscoMarzoa/posts/W5Mf2m5wqra Was this a scam all along? the Sol online store seems to have lost its security certificate https://store.solaptop.com/ Laurel L. Russwurm 22:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Is WeWi Telecommunications Inc. A Real Business?

According to the website for WeWi Telecommunications Inc., the company's address is 505- 111 Waterloo Street, London, Ontario, Canada, N6B 2M4. However, after some research, I discovered that WeWi's headquarters shares the same address as the company Next Dimension, a company founded in 1997 and specializing in IT services. Likewise, its marketing office is located at 554 Waterloo St., London, ON. Canada N6B 2P9, which also happens to be the location of Link Advertising Inc., an ad agency. Finally, as others have pointed out, there is lack of reputable reviews on WeWi's SOL Laptop. What does this all mean? Nelson Richards (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing, really. In Canadian postal addresses (and likely elsewhere), 505-111 Waterloo Street means municipal address 111, suite 505. 111 Waterloo Street and 554 Waterloo Street are not the same address, in fact they are roughly 2km apart. I don't see any reason to believe that Next Dimension and Link Advertising are the same operation as WeWi, based on their addresses. As for the lack of more recent reviews, well that has been a cause for concern for some time, but notability is not temporary. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Their online store no longer has a valid security certificate; after a year I can't get the computer & extras I* paid for, the promised refund, and now no response from phone or email. I am not alone in this, and yet they still seem to be selling Laurel L. Russwurm 02:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)