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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Internet-Security-Norton/Softpedia-website-is-not-safe/m-p/188629

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)[reply]

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) 54:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are being discussed at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Momo san ^Talk 19:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hopefully somebody in this establishment (wikipedia) will relize that your scope is to be an independent, objective institution and not a platform for cheap advertising KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to keep me much longer in "suspense"...when are going to delete their advertesing or put back my contra-advertising KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both "advertising" and "contra-advertising" are explicitly disallowed. Just because we have an article on a product, company, or album does not mean we are advertising for it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 21:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if that's true, why you accept their opinion and keep deleting mine (and other before me that started that topic)?!? KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article history, bias. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "bias", but the Criticism section was added in Sept by IP 202.126.98.210, and until recently when I added a few more real facts, you guys did not care about I don't know what "policy" being broken. "04:11, 9 September 2010 202.126.98.210 (talk) (3,485 bytes) (Added a criticism section, describing Softpedias disguised ads approach to serving content.) (undo)" KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did not know about != did not care. There's millions of articles on Wikipedia; to suggest we have the manpower to aggressively monitor each article is patently ridiculous. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 22:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, like a few "volunteers" before you, you still don't answer to the point, why YOU DELETE my contribution and DO NOT DELETE softpedia ADVERTISING (I should say free advertising). Can you please answer to this simple question? Thank you. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're aiming that at me specifically, I have not touched the article or anything else in it, so I could not have reverted anyone's contribution on that article. I cannot speak for other editors any more than Muhammad can speak for Horus.

And while we're on the topic, you notice in the article history that I link above that all those time/date stamps are blue? None of those revisions are deleted; only administrators have the power to delete edits out of page histories. I don't do this to be mean; I do this because most new or infrequent users conflate reversion with deletion. Your contribution remains in the article history, under your username - again, new or infrequent users do not realize this. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 08:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to me that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of info, a lot of reviews, media, people in the know give the warning that Wikipedia can not be trusted. I see that with my own eyes now, and before I get out (and never visit this website) I want to make a suggestion regarding your “strict” policy regarding verifiable source of info. I understand that policy to be applied for well-known topics that have been written about in many media sources. I think is a non-sense, a disservice to users asking that policy to be applied to a trivial, un-known, insignificant topic like www.softpedia.com. Where somebody can find such “verifiable” sources? Should we go and ask media, Web-security companies, PC magazine to rate web-sites like this every year or so? Allowing only one point of view (theirs), given them the liberty to publicize what and how they are doing their thing and not allowing another point of view, a “check” to agree/disagree to their saying, I don’t think that is correct and conform to what big Jimbo thinks that Wikipedia should stand for. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". Did somebody say it was? That is precisely why we don't allow wp:original research like you proposed. Readers cannot and should not have to trust statements in WP. They should, instead, be able to read the cited sources and determine for themselves if those sources support those statements. So by all means, seek out useful published sources describing the subject. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Sorry LeadSongDog but you guys are useless, you don't want to answer to my questions, your arguments are like a broken record, repeating only what you were brainwashed to say. Can you tell me how to report the issue above to your supervisors, or you just dictate and nobody controls you? Thank you, your highness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia cerberus, is this link a verifiable one, according to your NPOV policy? Based on that, I want to add to softpedia webpage that they use deceptive layout and ads making difficult for user to find the download link. CAN I DO THAT OR YOU WILL ACCUSE ME AGAIN OF VANDALIZING? http://website-in-a-weekend.net/making-money/advertising-design/

"Integration, not deception

Notice how hard it can be hard to find the real download link on download pages hosted on some download websites with white backgrounds like Softpedia which host freeware, shareware, and trialware? Tricky, right?

Users feeling tricked and might not return to your site. And that’s bad for future earnings from ad clicks. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is for SarekOfVulcan. I tried to discuss this civilized but I was talking to walls, I would say something, the editor something else but not addressing my question or point.

In my opinion, if you don't accept what I wanted to say regarding softpedia, without a reference from a "trusted entity", you should delete also Softpedia words related to how they diligently check all their software to make sure that no viruses/malware are attached. Why you don't do that? On what "reputable, verifiable" source is based their assertion? You said that Wikipedia doesn’t advertise, it is independent. If you obey this policy, an article from a profit business like softpedia should say only “ this is who we are, this is what we do, this is who uses us” and that’s it, nothing related to “how they do it”. As soon as you accept that plug-in, that’s advertising, with no verifiable “trusted sourse”. You don’t accept counter-argument/opinion to their assertion (w-out verificable sourse), that is equal with Wikipedia being biased. Can you dialog with me regarding to what I just said, as you mention before? Thank you.KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The statement about their "100% clean award" is cited. By the way, "Softpedia is tricky to use" does not sound like a neutral statement. Something along the lines of "INSERTNAMHERE criticized Softpedia as tricky to use" would be more neutral,and fit for Wikipedia, assuming that "INSERTNAMEHERE" is a reliable source. A review about Softpedia would be a good source for this kind of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotARealWord (talk • contribs) 11:46, 9 December 2010

---First of all SarekOfVulcan still did not get back to me to disscus "civilized". Instead NotARealWord added some non-sense. It seems that this is your style, how many, 3-5 editors keep moving around "replying" to me. Anyway I CANNOT BELIEVE MY EYES READING WHAT NotARealWord just wrote above.

NotARealWord said, quote "What do you mean? The statement about their "100% clean award" is cited." Are you for real, or you want to insult my/users’ intelligence? What, you have a different set of policies regarding "reliable sources and what self promotion means" that you apply for softpedia and another policies that you apply to my posts? WHO MADE THAT STATEMENT ABOUT 100% CLEAN AWARD? Can you answer me SAREKofVULCAN? My feeling is that the guy from Softpedia entered that...what a reliable source. Secondly, what does it means "100% clean AWARED"? Is this “award” given by a reliable, verifiable source/body/entity, maybe Golden Globes? NO, that comes from the same "reliable source", softpedia. And 3rdly, THIS IS PROOF THAT AMOUNG this team of editors that are against me, are some like (NotARealWord) which is (SAREK here is another personal attack according to your definition) or in a hurry to close my mouth, or just incompetent.

Here is my proof; NotARealWord said "the statement about their "100% clean award" is cited".

And read what is on the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softpedia)now: "programs which are also freeware or open source are given Softpedia's "100% Free" award.[4][non-primary source needed]"

Where is your non-primary source SAREK and Wikipedia and David Biddulph (David added this "fault pas" in NotARealWord's name)?

Regarding the 2nd point that I did not insert the name of a reliable source, we debated that, I inserted more sources but none is for you guys (I will start to differentiate between you, editors, and Wikipedia, in my naiveté, I still want to believe that how you act is not actually Wikipedia's way to work) a reliable one.

Conclusion: my belief is that (I cannot pinpoint) or/and there is a matter of incompetence from the editor's part, some Wikipedia/Softpedia interests or just a vendetta.

I still hope to hear from you SAREK, to discuss these issues in a “civilized” manner (I think, I am doing my part but you don’t do yours).

Picard out. KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---Helllooooooo, anybody out there!?! Or you care to talk to me only after I change the softpedia page, lol. Where are you SarekOfVulcan? You are late, I am not blocked anymore so why you don't talk to me? KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---I followed your advise and I am ready to debate/talk how I want to change softpedia page; I waited the whole day but you don't want to participate in the dialog that you recommended. What do you want, to force my hand to change that page so you will have the grounds to block me again? Man but I know that you made me really not to trust wikipedia at all and I will say that in any forum, blog and other places on the net because your behavior is more than unprofessional, it is absolutely arogant.KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this commenting on other editors. We are all volunteers, not your personal punching bags. Slagging people as "unprofessional", "arrogant" et cetera is not going to make them want to spend their valuable time helping you to understand this place.

You have been repeatedly invited to identify a reliable source publication that discusses the problems you are concerned with. That remains the best thing for you to do. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---:What, you cannot accept the facts, you don't like criticism because you consider yourselves...what, gods? You continue not answering to my question, you continue applying a double-standard policy (accepting softpedia entry without proof, not deleting entry even if ONE OF YOU made that comment that "it needs primary source", but deleting my entries), that guy SAREK doesn't show up here to dialog, and you again bark at me to stop comments against you. So what if u r volunteers? If you accepted to do this job, do it correctly, because as of now you just stain Wikipedia’s name.

And by the way, I found an interesting article.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-02-13/news/wikipedia-idiots-the-edit-wars-of-san-francisco/

KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures, and personal attacks

Firstly, please read Wikipedia:Signatures. The convention on Wikipedia is that a signature on a user's contribution on a talk page goes at "the end" of that contribution, not at the beginning.

Secondly, please read WP:NPA. If you continue to attack other editors, as you have been doing hitherto, you are unlikely to gain the support of the community, and you may well get blocked.

David Biddulph (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for continuing personal attacks after being warned. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KeepInternetSafe&Clean (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

to be honest with you, if you don't tell me a way to contact a higher up authority in this (abusive, dictatorial, biased) establishment, I don't give a damn that you blocked me, yoopeedooo. you can proceed now User:JeanLucPicard- KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is how you contact the "higher authorities", i.e., the people who are able to unblock your account. If you want us to do that, I strongly suggest you stop insulting us.

This doesn't appear to be a legitimate unblock request, and in any event it doesn't address the reason you were blocked, so therefore is declined. I think you seriously misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Our purpose here is not to advertise, and in fact we have a number of policies and guidelines specifically against it: WP:NPOV, WP:ADS, WP:COI, etc. If you believe that an article is promotional in nature, then you are encouraged to discuss it with other editors in a civil, constructive manner. Accusing others of working for companies they haven't heard of is not helpful, and calling them an embarrasment, abusive, etc., is offensive. If it continues, this block will be extended or set to an indefinite length. Before appealing again, you should read this policy on civility and this guide to appealing blocks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Two things:

Wikipedia does not use adverts (except for personal appeals from editors or Jimmy Wales during fundraiser season) - simply because advertisement is by its very nature non-neutral in design.
Wikipedia has no centralized power structure (short of the Wikimedia Foundation, which does not get involved in the internal affairs of a wiki unless absolutely necessary). No one editor or group of editors has any "final say" over what goes into an article, and that includes the Softpedia article as well.

If you could tone the aggression down and learn to disengage, I'm sure that you might find another article that you would enjoy editing and put this regrettable incident behind you. But for that to happen, you need to not be so quick to dismiss critics with insults. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 21:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]