1590:
There is nothing on here which makes negative or positive comments towards any other site or any feature of the
Softpedia site. It is an informative article about a genuine site on the internet. If you find something, then stop being a dope and complaining about it here. You people seem to know how to use the edit button. Instead of posting about it here and complaining how the article is NPOV or whatever the hell you think is wrong, just edit the page as you see fit. You people keep trying to make yourselves out to be patriots of Knowledge...trying to make it the perfect encyclopedia. Fine, sounds great....however, you aren't helping your cause by complaining about this article, putting dumb tags and not editing it yourself.
1738:@ Cableguy: you seem to be very interested in spreading the false information about those suckers from Softpedia. Aren't you somehow connected with them? That would be very possible, judging from your whole activity in this discussion. People, don't let another spammer fool you! Cableguy is just one of those guys trying to spread Softpedia brand across the web: type in 'softpedia' in your local (national) Google and check, how these f**** are tricky: they are posting fake articles/comments, stating that rest is to be found on softpedia website. Again: In my opinion this article should be converted to the proper state - it should warn people from accessing Softpedia.
432:
405:
1611:
think the article requires changes then YOU make the changes. YOU can't expect someone else to do the changes YOU want to make. Stop being dumb and putting dumb tags and instead make the edits YOU want to make. Be a wikipedia saint, and make contributions which are actually worthwhile. The article's intent is good, if you think the content is bad then edit it. No one is going to do the work for you, as you have seen from the history. I am one of maybe, three people who edit. Either you can become the fourth, or just leave the article alone. --CableguyTK
545:
524:
2008:). Further, I would assume that I've got the option of asking them to link to it in the "Description" section on their front page for my software (although I've had mixed success with getting them to edit that). I found that my software appeared on the site with somewhat shoddy descriptions (definitely not copy-pastes!), screenshots and links "without my consent", but I was happy enough to have another link to my site and they've now done most of the corrections I asked for when I contacted them: I find them reasonably helpful, if a little spurious!
555:
1543:, which it claims is spyware and adware-free. Yeah, it's not adware, but it contains ads (advertisement about advertising in the program :), and it suspiciously have ~2..3% CPU usage even when not downloading. It's a software with access to the internet, so it also isn't sure if it is spyware-free. Its softpedia article is like a bad PR text and doesn't contain any remarkable information about the testing, the behaviour of the program, etc. Also, this cableguy should be banned.
492:
305:
278:
373:
664:: "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is verifiability, not truth." For example, a statement like "Softpedia is best known for doing thorough testing of each software product and game they list" needs to be verified with an independent reference. If it were instead written as "Softpedia markets itself as thoroughly testing each software product and game they list," then that could be verified from the site itself, and is appropriate.
247:
1384:
218:
190:
1497:--- It really depends on who you talk to as to the opinion of Softpedia. If you asked me I would say they are trust worthy, and their staff is not anonymous to me. I have asked the admins several times to do something like Download.com does, which is provide a page which has a short little blurb about each Download.com along with a picture. We shall see if they choose to do this in the near future ;).
1204:
uses to detect spyware, and therefore belongs in the discussion of how
Softpedia attempts to detect spyware. The "Klip farm" isn't notable. "Unlimited free downloads" can be rolled into the discussion of what users can do. "Viewing of screenshots" is implied by the fact that Softpedia provides screenshots, but I added "free screenshots" to make that clear.
1427:*Much of the content is concerned with the details of how to use the site; in fact, it's copied and pasted from the help page. This article should not be a "how to" page for Softpedia. Examples: "The Navigation Menu is located in the header and is composed of six buttons" and "Clicking on the parts of this path takes you to that specific place...."
1092:"Softpedia is best known for doing thorough testing of each software product and game they list, providing high quality, home made screenshots for each program as well as checking each one for any evidence of viruses, malware, adware or spyware using a variety of well know antivirus and antispyware products. "
2191:
Can anyone provide a legitimate, policy based explanation for why that section is there? We generally do not provide what is essentially promotional information for a site unless it is notable enough to have been discussed in third party sources, and even then it's not always acceptable to include.
2120:
I don't know why people add opinions to a
Knowledge page based on their own findings and not after they verify it against multiple sources. Please reference your "information" before posting anything. The page details general information about the site with no "extra" promotion. I have a problem with
1734:
By the way, an annoing automatic forum poster (spambot) is advertised on a site that has recently received softedias "safety certificate". I guess this should be remarkable as well as the fact, that infamous icontool has received that certificate too. Anybody brave (or stupid) enough can download one
1524:
This article should be removed because it promotes a web sites which pops up dangerous and weird windows! I use Zone Alarm Pro as a firewall and
Kaspersky Anti-Virus, I know my computer is clean and protected so I decided to give Softpedia a try. While I was checking for a program, the content of the
1500:
If you check the link on the blog post of the "fake" browser it doesnt work anymore. Softpedia removed it. On a side note, if you check the history, which I have conveniently put together on the Wiki article, you will see that they didn't start testing the stuff they listed until
October 2004. This
1280:
This section is copied verbatim from an older revision of
Softpedia, and is therefore a copyright violation. I do not think a discussion of the number of buttons in the navigation menu warrants being included in an encyclopedia article about the site, unless the navigation is unusual in some way. I
1203:
I consider the software poll and ratings to be notable enough to add to the above section. The "read user reviews" is redundant - if users can post reviews, they can obviously be read. The "report broken link" isn't notable; "report spyware" is notable for being part of the mechanism that
Softpedia
931:
A screenshot of the index page is nice (in my opinion), but it's not necessary. Usually, though, I think it makes sense, for space conservation and for reduction of clutter/distraction, to just include a graphic of the website (or company) logo. In general, I see no reason why, in a general article
743:
What difference does it make if there is more content that another page? It just means the editors to the page are more deveoted to providing more wealth of information about the site. All sites are unique...and while website pages are same in their intents the readers/editors are certainly not the
2207:
I looked at the URLs posted by one editor (they have since been deleted). They are all repeats of a single news item. The item was about one spyware program being distributed in several programs. Those programs were carried by several download sites. Softpedia was one of those sites. This belongs to
1846:
I can go on and on (the list of sites which have the generic message is endless). Every download site has this message from SiteAdvisor, at least those which SiteAdvisor has gotten around to testing. Seeing as how articles for ALL of those sites exists, it is beyond me why you are giving
Softpedia
1589:
Jesus you people need to get a life and worry about more pressing articles. There should be an article called "Keeping it real". Advert? Are you kidding me? You might as well delete every article on here about a webpage...they are all adverts if that is the case. NPOV...what on here is not NPOV?
1415:
I never said that "the
Softpedia admins should not be editing this page." I said exactly what you said, that they should not be the principal maintainers. And what I said was in response to the suggestion that the article should be changed ONLY if "the Softpedia admins felt that there was too much
1216:
A brief mention of the discussion board is warranted; I added "Users...can discuss software." Reviews have already been mentioned; the "download basket" isn't notable. "Post opinion" is the same as reviews. "Subscribe" is notable, and I added a line about it above: "and receive e-mails when their
1068:
I have spent a lot of time working this article over in an attempt to glean out the notable information (what
Softpedia does) from the not notable (how many buttons are on its navigation menu). Here is my detailed discussion of the changes I made and why I believe the changes were warranted. There
874:
And why should it not? An encyclopedia is meant to educate readers...what is wrong with educating a user on how to use a website? If I made an article about this webpage that had this MacOSX interface (I can't recall the webpage...sorry) on information about the site as well as how to use it, what
1865:
Third, Softpedia doesnt host the software, it links to them. I can goto many sites (that are not softpedia affiliated) and find a link which leads to "bad" software. One day I went to Alexa.com and it was linking to ContraVirusPro.com in its traffic graph because traffic has spiked. Little did I
1674:
I heard about Softpedia for the first time today, so I started poking around. I have evidence that the site actively participates in the distribution of malware. I intend to soon edit the article to this effect, and I will ensure that my edits will be within Knowledge guidelines and acceptable to
1512:
They still have a lot of archived softwares from 2003 when they became Softpedia.com which have old screenshots and have not been tested. Any software listed before October 2004 which hasnt been updated (by the developer) since then are this way. They will eventually cover all old softwares...just
1365:
Far too much material was removed in that last edit. One of the aspects of being bold is that if you go too far, others may revert it. Your assertions of copyvio, by the way, need to be asserted with the {{copyvio}} template, instead of merely blanking them. Also, your statement that the Softpedia
655:
As I have stated in the changes...talk to the SP admins. ALL the information in the page is 100% accurate and factual. The only information which is based off my own research is the section containing the major dates...however, those dates are accurate as well if you actully were to contact the SP
1948:
in that it attempted to establish a connection between Symantec's decision and Softpedia's safety and moreover attempted to suggest something about the website's integrity (a highly subjective concept). Such claims (including such connections) should be attributed to reliable sources. I do believe
1610:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. There is a reason why you choose to be an editor/contributor here. You CHOOSE to EDIT articles. E-D-I-T. As I tried and SUCCEEDED in making clear to another person who did the same dumb crap you are doing with tags with another article I contributed to, if YOU
1318:
A link to the front page of the Softpedia site is sufficient; if there were country-specific versions of Softpedia, these might also be included. This should not be a navigation menu for the site. I don't see a reason to include the answers.com link - that could potentially be included for every
848:
There are general users who make little additions (or removals) here and there as they see fit, then there are others, like yourself, who take things a little too seriously. You aren't getting paid for your work here. If you are going to make such major removals at least do one removal at a time
640:
Cableguy, you have reverted the page several times to your version. The level of detail is inappropriate - how many other articles about web sites have a screenshot of the feedback form? The use of adjectives like "renowned" and "highly respected" make the article read as if it's a press release
1561:
template to this article, because many of the images, links, and details provided read more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. Many of these details are already available on Softpedia's website, and do not need to be included here. If you're having navigation desing issues with
1261:
All of this information I have compiled and Softpedia admins confirm this to be accurate. I find it valuable. An encyclopedia is also meant to be used as learning about history. I think it is good to have a history about a particular thing, whether it be a major war or just a general website.
1173:
This appears to have been copied verbatim from the Softpedia help. As such, it is a copyright violation, and in any case, the Knowledge article should not be replacing the site's own help. This can be summed up in a single phrase, "in hierarchial categories," which I added to the above section.
723:
so when there are "we"'s it is due to the SOURCE having "we"'s. Instead of being a nice, genuine wikipedia user and taken the time to edit these little "problems" as you see fit, you have gone a different route and removed way too much content that I, and the SP admins, as well as other SP users,
1929:
I researched Softpedia as it seemed to have the potential of being an excellent resource for free software. I quoted from Symantec and McAffee web sites. Both which I consider to be standards in the computer security business but that is my opinion. There are some interesting negative points
1850:
I question your motives for listing this information on Softpedia if you are not listing it (legitimately) on the other pages listed. If your intents were in fact neutral you would be making it your duty to list it on all of those pages, which makes me believe this is a genuine smear campaign.
1178:
Softpedia admins had no problems with it. If Im not wrong one should usually take this up with the copyright holder and have him/her be the judge. And in this case they wouldn't have a problem as they know it has been used. But whatever, I won't object to removing something which is already
1143:
I think that the first screenshot, showing the main page, is good because it also shows some listings and gives a sense of the site. Separate screenshots of listings of specific categories are redundant. The screenshots showing the "Software Submit" form and "Feedback" form can be cut; most
2032:
The main purpose of the Softpedia site is to deceive individuals into downloading and installing malware. The site administrators are extremely sophisticated, and use numerous social engineering techniques to deceive individuals. In my opinion, this is one of the worst malware sites on the
1273:
The note about hotlinking is only a technical detail and not notable. The "Anybody can submit software" line should not give detailed instructions for submitting software, but I would like to see a discussion of how Softpedia obtains its software in another section. The "Free of charge" is
955:
A Knowledge article should inform about the site, but not be a primary resource for learning how to use it. "The Navigation Menu is located in the header and is composed of six buttons" reads like a manual for the website, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article about the site.
1409:
I think you'll find that while I removed a lot of text, I removed very little information; I merely rearranged it, improved it, and made it more compact. If there was information you felt I removed that deserved to be part of the article, it would have been better to add it to my changed
633:
I found this page, which appears to have been little more than an advertisement for the site in question, maintained by one user. I eliminated a lot of inappropriate detail and extra screenshots, and tried to cut the article down to something comparable to other articles about websites.
1525:
page suddenly changed to some nasty spam/malware ad and I immediately disconnected my modem. I knew something like that would happen since it's a Romanian site. (Do not get me wrong, no offense). Remove / delete this article at once! (You can check the site if you don't believe me.)
950:
If you wish for me to go through and remove certain bits of information that you, specifically, do not find NPOV, then I will do that. However I completely object to removing factual information about the site that would otherwise help uninformed users in learning about the site.
1319:
article on Knowledge! Unless there's some motivation for including it for the Softpedia article in particular, it should go. The same is true for big-boards, archive.org, alexa, crawler, statbrain, and netcraft. Other articles on websites do not include these sorts of links.
2268:, you are welcome to add information about "scraping PyPI" (whatever that means). Please note, though, that the link you provided does not meet our guidelines for reliable sources. But we don't delete articles because they don't list every single thing about the subject.
1366:
admins should not be editing this page is wrong. They're perfectly welcome to edit the page and correct information: they just should not be the principle contributors, but even this is a guideline and not a policy. Remember, this is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit.
641:
for the website, especially because there are no references. In fact, further in the article, you seem to confuse Knowledge with the Softpedia site itself - you refer to it as "our site" and the administrators as "we." This is self-aggrandizing and has no place here.
1977:
is even worse since the downloads links all point to winpcap.org but they are labelled as "mirror". Let's make this clear : this site never provides anything else but copy & paste from the original with only link to the binaries going back to the original site.
1880:
Cableguytk, please stop listing other articles. I don't give a damn about Softpedia or about the other websites. The only reason I even noticed your edit to this page is that I happened to watchlist it after it was nominated for deletion some weeks ago. I have no
1285:
The majority of the stuff in that section I agree can be removed as it was straight from the website, however I think that random tidbits of information (that would otherwise be unable to fall under any major category) is always a good thing to have about any
999:
I'm sorry if I'm not a web coder. I try my best to mimic the ways people edit their pages...and I do agree the way I implemented the screenshots was rather poor, but I, the admins, and other general softpedia users enjoyed the page as a whole (including the
1930:
brought up about Softpedia in this discussion such that it distributes software for generating spam. I don't have the time to see if it is still distributing it. It appears that Softpedia honestly tries to weed out bad software but is not 100% successful.
2171:
I find it alarming that there is apparently no independent citable third party review of this entity, here or anywhere on the net. If there was an independent published reviewe of the site, it should be included. The absence if this also speaks volumes.
1158:
Most of the discussion of the "Sections" are the same with "Linux" or "Macintosh" replaced with Windows; this can be condensed into a few sentences, at which point it no longer warrants a separate category. Condensed and moved to the previous section.
2121:
Facebook, but I don't add my opinion to Facebook's main wiki page. It's MY opinion. If this page is considered to be as "promotional", than Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and all other pages should be deleted as well. They are as promotional as this one.
854:
You need to stop acting like everyone on the web is a technical user, accept the fact that most people aren't technical and information like that provided in this article is gladly accepted as everybody knows that no one reads the FAQ's on a webpage.
1750:
source, Softpedia.com was established in 2003. However, I think that just reflects the year that the name was changed from Softnews.ro to Softpedia.com. At this time, we just need a source to confirm that Softnews.ro was created in November 2001. --
2028:
I know that Softpedia is a malware site. I know this because I have found downloads on Softpedia of common, standard downloads that are available everywhere, but on the Softpedia site, have been altered from their original to also install malware.
2263:
Second, if the article reads like an ad, then the solution is to improve it so that it is neutral, not delete it, unless you can demonstrate that it is impossible to write a neutral article (because no neutral sources exist). Third, if you have a
1439:*There is other information which is not verifiable, such as "Softpedia is best known for doing thorough testing of each software product and game they list..." This requires a reference, or the claim should be weakened to "Softpedia claims..."
1903:
as opposed to the contributor. Knowledge is not filled with editors hell-bent on harming Softpedia (note that it was someone else who originally added that sentence). Accusations of the type you've made can lead to blocking per the policies on
1508:
software listed. Where do you think all the screenshots come from? The ones that don't have screenshots that have been updated recently are either a javascript program, a program run from the command console, or something along those lines.
1256:
I consider a lot of these "major changes" to not be notable - some of them are as minor as "Softpedia added a link," and it's not the role of Knowledge to categorize every time any web page adds a link. But I am leaving this alone for now.
1477:
I think it's problematic at best to list the softpedias awards so superficialy as long as their lab crew is anonymous and their testing procedures and criteria is untransparent. They are an unknown group, and their claims are unprovable.
1111:
Check the news section. They only started providing home made screenshots recently so there remains listed softwares which need updating. But their new company policy is providing home made screenshots for everything that is able to be
1854:
I would also like to see if you would defend the bit of information if you run into the same resistance on those respective pages. Not only am I sure that you will run into resistance, but Im also sure you would probably ignore it.
1944:("reader is urged to consider", "it is worth noting", and so on). Second, part of the content was copy-pasted directly from the McAfee website, but not surrounded with quotation marks. Finally, I think your addition introduced an
875:
is wrong with that? Users like my mom, for example, would have no idea about how to use it...and there is no documentation anywhere as far as I know. As I said, how many people do you know read the FAQ to a website? Seriously.
1869:
The bit of information is generic in its nature and worthless for sites of this nature since nobody has control of developers changing their policy to include adware, nor do they notify the download site of the information.
1644:
Instead of defending against people who ACTUALLY EDIT THE CONTENT, which I dont mind, I am defending it against a bunch of dopes who do nothing but put dumb TAGS, expecting OTHER PEOPLE to do the work they will never
837:, not merely minor changes. I made a large change because I felt the article warranted it, but as you can see, I was selective in what I kept. I am not sure why you think I am not a "general user" of Knowledge.
2070:
statement. What individuals? Claims of allegations should generally be attributed. Third, the final statement, urging "extreme care", effectively constitutes a disclaimer, which goes against current practice and
1647:
What spamming? I dont see spamming. I am legitimately talking about the edits here on this discussion page. All you seem to do is just come here and ask the admins for a ban. Talk about real contributions to
153:
2257:
967:
As I have asked you before, if you find material as being improper, then remove it with a reason. Removing a bunch of stuff all in one shot with a rather general reason will provoke this kind of discussion.
749:
There have been probably a few hundred users to this article and none of them seem to have a problem with the page...you just happen to be the first... Who says that there is "too much" content for an item?
1126:"Programs which are free of any viruses, malware, adware and spyware are given the highly respected 100% Clean award, with those programs which are free at the same time being given the 100% Free award."
1005:
I take it you aren't a software developer. I think that software developers will find the screenshot of the "submit software form" very helpful...Software websites aren't ONLY for download junkies.
1775:, articles must "represent fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." This means that relevant negative information must be included as well.
1229:
This section is essentially "How to use this site," which isn't appropriate. A discussion of how Softpedia finds the software it lists would be useful, but I am not prepared to write that now.
1039:
BTW: I am the only one who edits the page because no one else decided to undertake editing the stub besides myself. Hey Im sorry if this page isn't as highly trafficed as your Army pages are.
482:
1731:
My security software also reads Softpedia as full of malware, etc. I guess this article should be immediately edited and a clear warning about softpedia-related threats should be added to it.
824:
True, but if they felt too much information is disclosed then they would feel free to remove it regardless. There is no limit on information and I've never heard of guidelines on page length.
787:
have to be notable. It's an easy mistake to make; I believe Knowledge's concept of notability and its purpose is not very well understood, possibly because it is not very well represented. --
1450:
I have written another, less aggressive edit that fixes all of these problems as best I can. If you (Swatjester, Cableguy, or whoever else) still considers this edit too aggressive,
732:, and compare to articles about other websites. There is far more information than is appropriate to an article about a web page; compare to articles about other notable web pages.
1442:* There is redundant or superfluous information, such as the screenshot of the "Feedback Form" page. There needs to be some justification for inclusion of these mundane details.
1452:
I plead with you to fix it by adding additional content to the page that you feel is missing, NOT by simply reverting it and reintroducing all of the problems I listed above.
860:
729:
882:
Unsigned guy: What RF means is that a Knowledge article about a particular website isn't, strictly speaking, intended as a user's guide for that website. An article about
1786:
to status of content in this article. If a reliable source claims that some of Download.com's downloads contain adware, you may note it in the Download.com article, but
1660:
Oh, and by the way, if the real Knowledge police found this article to be an advertisement, it would have been deleted by now. Seeing as how it hasn't...sucks for you.
1989:
200:
1678:
I mention this here because some editors here seem to be very emotional about Softpedia. I would like to give you an opportunity to respond before I make this edit.
2337:
2156:
1712:
1189:
This is also copied verbatim from the site's own help. I summed this up with the sentence "Registered users can post comments about the software or news articles."
1858:
Second, you are leaving out half of the bit: "In our tests of this site, a very small percentage of its many downloads contained adware or other unwanted programs.
766:. Each of these sites contains one screenshot. The information in an article should be notable; a screenshot of the "Contact Us" form doesn't meet that criteria.
147:
2312:
1892:. However, I'll drop the issue for someone else to pick up, for the simple reason that it's not worth pursuing for the inclusion or exclusion of just one sentence.
1949:
that Softpedia tries to weed out bad software, and the issue of download safety may be worth writing about, but any added content should be based purely on what
1457:
1352:
1044:
1010:
989:
957:
864:
838:
814:
767:
733:
688:
665:
920:
3. Whether there's anything specific/important about it, in addition to the above (i.e., is it generally thought to be a good/okay/notorious resource? etc.)
1593:
Either edit the article as you see fit, or move on to the next article. This article hardly needs any of your input. 10:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Cableguytk
1526:
1563:
988:, and model the inclusion of the screenshots after those articles. A screenshot of the feedback form adds clutter without making this article more useful.
2013:
1023:
Knowledge is NOT a how to manual. Your argument of "helpful" infers it was aimed at process or procedural steps. Please stick to the style guidelines.
1433:*There is information which is verifiably false. For example, Softpedia does not produce a screenshot for each program, as can be verified by visiting
363:
2209:
684:
Information taken verbatim from the Softpedia site must be quoted and marked as such; otherwise it is a copyright violation and likely non-NPOV. See
611:
1816:
First off, since you are making it your duty to put it on Softpedia's page you should be making it your duty to put it on all download sites pages...
1782:
on me. I have no interest in smearing or glorifying Softpedia. I will note again: the existence or non-existence of content in any other article has
1513:
have to be patient. They also rely on user input...so if you send update information about an old software that can help them update old softwares.
1082:
fair enough. that was information I did not know if SP wanted me listing so I left it N/A in the hopes they would fill in what they felt completing.
1488:
1396:
2009:
1597:
Nominating this article for deletion is sounding like a better idea all the time, but I'll be kind and just put the advert template back in. --
1335:
I think Alexa should be here but if you think the link in the beginning description is enough and therefore is redundant to include here, fine.
1043:
I also have decided to undertake editing this page, in hopes of making it more useful. I am not sure which "Army pages" you're referring to?
1013:
992:
867:
841:
817:
770:
1266:
However, if you feel multiple entries for the same month should be consolidated into one entry for that month then change it as you see fit.
1069:
is also a lot of grammar and spelling fixes - please do not simply revert to the old version, because they will lose these sorts of changes.
890:, and might go into a bit of detail about what a "search engine" is, but would not provide step-by-step instructions about how to use Google.
829:
If other general users (unlike yourself) felt there was too much jargon about the website they would SELECTIVELY remove it as they see fit.
691:
1095:
This paragraph is what Softpedia claims to do, but these are unverified; without a reference this must be weakened to "Softpedia says..."
791:
1326:
I'm happy you recognized the top 20 was no anywhere on the homepage (as they hide it after they changed the homepage) and kept the link.
849:
with reasons. Making one big removal (like you did) with a dumb reason like "content reduction" will provoke discussions like this one.
2332:
2297:
1460:
506:
472:
353:
79:
1471:
1032:
2352:
2307:
1306:
I don't consider the discussion of the technical details of IP filtering for a poll on a site not devoted to polling to be notable.
1129:
This should read "programs that Softpedia finds free of viruses..." The "highly respected," without a reference, is editorializing.
941:
714:
601:
387:
228:
2017:
1918:
1885:
to do anything. This is a volunteer online project, not the military. As for your other point, you may add to the quote if you wish.
1650:
If CRAP is what you call the content you are removing, then so be it. I at least got your LAZY ass to do something. *claps hands*.
2244:
In case the Softpedia link disappears, it was a link in the added section "Zope - Example Usage" (bit.ly/ftr1qW), redirecting to:
1627:
1615:
2292:
2221:
1704:
2107:
2089:
1329:
Big-Boards was kind of dumb since it is a stupid in its nature...I was just trying to find "external links" related to the site.
2357:
2347:
2327:
2302:
2166:
1959:
1642:
Yes please try. I dont see what I am doing wrong. I am defending the effort that I have put into the articles I contribute to.
2130:
1669:
85:
2181:
1348:
and highly trusted anti-phishing site. People who live and die by this site would find a link to SP.com at netcraft useful.
1985:
329:
2098:
Sorry, I have made no edits to this article yet, but I will just as soon as I have a verifiable source. Have a great day!
1416:
information disclosed about the site." That's obviously not true. As you point out, anyone can - and should - edit this.
2152:
1807:
1708:
1163:
While I see your point, I think its fine the way it is since the other 3 or so sections are listed off the way it is now.
834:
809:
The Softpedia admins are not the arbiters of this page; in fact, they should not even be the principal maintainers. See
577:
1682:
1338:
Crawler is redundant, and considering they dont get near as much traffic info as Alexa it is somewhat worthless to have.
800:
When was there a limit on screenshots? I agree that some of them were redundant...the admins liked them so I kept them.
168:
2062:
I have reverted your recent addition, for three reasons. First, the added content was controversial but unsourced (see
1970:
1874:
30:
1767:
Cableguytk, that some of Softpedia's downloads contain adware is not presented as an indisputable fact, but is rather
135:
805:
If the Softpedia admins felt that there was too much information disclosed about the site, then it would be removed.
44:
680:
This article was not meant to be an advertisement. A lot of the information on the page is copied from the website,
1762:
1387:
1993:
1967:
softpedia does not link back to the original website, presenting itself as being the main provider of the software
1332:
Archive.org I think is relavant for a WEBSITE. It is another form of "history" and I think it should be included.
698:
If this was my thesis project I would put in that effort. This is wikipedia, not Encyclopedia Britannica...ha ha.
2322:
2277:
2260:. Those sites can then do anything they want with it, including linking to Softpedia--it is of no concern to us.
2238:. Also note that some scraped Knowledge pages (which serve Google ads) magically have links to Softpedia entries
2235:
This "article" is an advertisement. It is unbalanced and does not mention Softpedia practices like scraping PyPI
1772:
1757:
1009:
I am, in fact, a professional software developer, but I do not see how that screenshot adds notable information.
501:
415:
312:
283:
99:
1445:*Grammar, capitalization, spelling errors, and the continued use of the phrase "our site" to refer to Softpedia.
2342:
2317:
1424:*Large parts of the article are taken verbatim from the site, without attribution; this is a copyright problem.
568:
529:
448:
439:
410:
382:
288:
104:
20:
74:
2247:
2201:
1047:
960:
779:
I just have to point out that information in articles doesn't have to be notable. The notability guideline,
736:
2230:
2051:
1529:
258:
129:
1575:
I think we can even consider it for deletion & rewrite from scratch. It's simply a too detailed spam.
1104:"Providing high quality home made screenshots for each program" is demonstrably false. See, for example,
668:
1934:
1896:
1501:
whole fake browser stuff was listed back in 2003, before they actually tested the softwares they listed.
810:
65:
1403:
2160:
2055:
2033:
Internet. I am now working to document this via an authoritative third party, as per Knowledge rules.
1716:
1664:
1491:
1355:
1262:
Hell, I would like to know when Google came out of beta...but we dont have that information now do we?
1117:"well known antivirus and antispyware products" requires a reference; I removed the "well known" bit.
1078:
I have removed the "N/A" information - if it's not applicable, there's no reason to have it be there.
932:
about any website, a screenshot of any other page than the index page would be necessary to include.
125:
1570:
1562:
your website, fix your website instead of trying to cram unnecessary lists of links onto Knowledge.
224:
196:
2236:
1974:
1735:
of of these and check it himself. Nobody should visit softpedia when using an IE browser, anyway :)
1054:
Sorry, I must have had the other guy's pages. Swatjester's page. He is the army buff or something.
1741:
1601:
1547:
2005:
576:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
328:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2186:
1924:
1434:
1105:
685:
661:
246:
175:
109:
1793:
If there is a reason to remove the quote, other than that the same can be said of Download.com (
1726:
1579:
728:
All the information is relevant to the site, in the sense that it refers to the site. But see
325:
754:
I do, based on the examples set by other articles and Knowledge's policies. For example, see
2217:
2001:
1540:
264:
861:
Knowledge:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information
730:
Knowledge:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information
2148:
2126:
2039:
2023:
1981:
1372:
780:
1539:
Where is criticism from the article? Where is NPOV? My only encounter with Softpedia were
217:
189:
8:
2177:
1747:
1430:*There is non-NPOV, self-aggrandizing terms, e.g. the "highly respected 100% Clean award"
1028:
675:
Talk to the SP admins if you so desire. They have verified the work I put into the page.
447:
on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
55:
1866:
know that ContraVirus is a known rogue antivirus program which should not be installed.
1820:
2273:
2197:
937:
710:
141:
70:
1836:
1828:
1797:) or that the quote diminishes the number of people who visit Softpedia (Knowledge is
431:
404:
2085:
1955:
1914:
1803:
1753:
1534:
1360:
972:
You seem to be the only one who actually cares about the content in the screenshots.
788:
51:
1971:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Network-Tools/Protocol-Analyzers-Sniffers/WinPcap.shtml
554:
544:
523:
2213:
2103:
2047:
1637:
1519:
1274:
discussed above - "Users can freely download..." So this section can be removed.
161:
2122:
1905:
1871:
1778:
As for your most recent comment, I want to kindly ask you to refrain from making
1661:
1624:
1612:
1598:
1567:
1558:
1367:
560:
1973:
does not link to winpcap.org at all, and visiting the download page for winpcap
859:
Knowledge articles should not attempt to teach users how to use a website. See
2173:
1945:
1798:
1552:
1024:
705:
You're right -- we try to make Knowledge better than Encyclopedia Britannica.
647:
2258:
Knowledge:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License
2286:
2269:
2193:
2140:
2072:
1941:
1909:
1889:
1794:
1779:
1687:
1652:
I certainly dont think very highly of you. Id like to know someone who does.
1620:
1487:
As the article stands now, Knowledge lends of it credibility to softpedia. --
933:
887:
706:
1454:
We need to get past the continued reversions to the flawed original article.
2265:
2079:
that Softpedia is a malware site or contains malware, they should be noted
2076:
1950:
1824:
1584:
1020:
Depends on who you talk to (as to seeing who finds that screenshot useful).
2256:
Other sites are allowed to scrape Knowledge--you can read full details at
1940:
For a few reasons, I have reverted your additions. First, articles should
744:
same. I dont think there are any RULES on how long a page can be, anyway.
2248:
http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Programming/Libraries/z3c-soap-64151.shtml
2192:
Unless there's a good reason, I'm inclined to remove the whole section.
2099:
2067:
2063:
2043:
1768:
1679:
2239:
1931:
1860:
However, Softpedia prohibits these programs and removes them when found
1576:
1544:
1063:
985:
763:
491:
1281:
removed this section for the copyright violation and for notability.
900:
321:
24:
1193:
Same comments about the copyrights. But that is fine what you did.
660:"Accurate and factual" is not an important criterion. Please read
573:
372:
317:
304:
277:
2004:
etc) do link back to my original homepage via the developer page (
1383:
443:, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major
1975:
http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/WinPcap-Download-25344.html
444:
1847:
preferential treatment in listing this dumb bit of information.
2006:
http://handheld.softpedia.com/developer/code-Biscuit-11841.html
1840:
1832:
981:
883:
759:
1435:
http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Developer-Tools/KFDecorator.shtml
1421:
Here, in my opinion, are the major problems with this article:
1106:
http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Developer-Tools/KFDecorator.shtml
886:, for example, would talk about Google's purpose as an online
1294:
I don't consider the ability to report broken links notable.
1888:
I can see that the only way to resolve this will be through
1484:
on softpedia, on how they distributed a fake firefox build.
1481:
1391:
1323:
No objections with answers.com or the separate pages on SP.
977:
755:
2002:
http://handheld.softpedia.com/get/Audio/oTuner-80311.shtml
1965:
Could the wikipedia page be opinionated? Something like :
1788:
that piece of information is not relevant to this article
628:
572:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
1895:
I will also encourage you to remember the principle of
976:
Please compare to other articles on web sites, such as
1144:
articles about web pages include only one screenshot.
160:
1821:
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/download.com/summary
1249:
I consider these two sections to be good as written.
899:
The information I expect to see here, with regard to
2066:). Second, "some individuals have accused ..." is a
550:
316:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
15:
1837:
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/simtel.net/summary
1829:
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/tucows.com/summary
1564:Knowledge is not a repository of links or images.
2338:Start-Class Websites articles of High-importance
2284:
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
2313:Start-Class software articles of Mid-importance
174:
1697:participates in the distribution of malware
244:
863:- Knowledge is not an instruction manual.
199:on 11 December 2010 (UTC). The result of
1771:specifically to McAfee SiteAdvisor. Per
1516:-CableguyTK 8:43PM EST, April 14, 2006.
1953:have to say about the subject. Cheers,
917:2. What it's for (software downloads)
652:You are removing way too much content.
2285:
1341:Statbrain...see comment on Big-Boards.
1214:Features available to registered users
1245:Softpedia Users' Choice award winners
1179:available in the help on their site.
566:This article is within the scope of
310:This article is within the scope of
240:
212:
184:
835:Knowledge:Be bold in updating pages
263:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
13:
490:
371:
14:
2369:
2333:High-importance Websites articles
2298:Low-importance Computing articles
724:find is relavant about the site.
2353:Mid-importance Internet articles
2308:Mid-importance software articles
1470:A bloggers comment on softpedia
1382:
1236:I will work on that information.
1227:Submitting software to Softpedia
553:
543:
522:
430:
403:
303:
276:
245:
216:
188:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1969:. For example the winpcap page
1773:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
1217:favorite software is updated."
1199:Features available to all users
606:This article has been rated as
477:This article has been rated as
358:This article has been rated as
338:Knowledge:WikiProject Computing
223:This article was nominated for
195:This article was nominated for
2293:Start-Class Computing articles
2167:lack of tird party information
2161:11:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
2090:20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
2075:. If there are allegations in
2056:19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
1693:I have evidence that the site
833:Knowledge encourages users to
586:Knowledge:WikiProject Internet
457:Knowledge:WikiProject Websites
341:Template:WikiProject Computing
1:
2358:WikiProject Internet articles
2348:Start-Class Internet articles
2328:Start-Class Websites articles
2303:Start-Class software articles
2222:12:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
2202:05:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
2131:08:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
2108:12:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
1799:not a vehicle for advertising
1717:09:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1683:00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1670:Negative edit about Softpedia
1665:21:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
1628:19:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1616:01:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
1602:00:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
1580:11:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
589:Template:WikiProject Internet
580:and see a list of open tasks.
499:This article is supported by
460:Template:WikiProject Websites
380:This article is supported by
332:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
2278:02:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
2208:a more general article like
2018:15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
1571:20:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1504:Today they test, HAND TEST,
942:21:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
715:21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
227:on 23/4/2007. The result of
7:
1727:Softpedia is a malware site
1548:21:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
914:1. What it is (a website)
811:Knowledge:Vanity guidelines
792:02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
2374:
2000:Hi, "my" softpedia pages (
1994:13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
1960:23:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
1935:21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
1758:04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1530:02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1461:10:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
1404:06:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
1356:00:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
1048:23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
1014:23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
993:23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
961:23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
868:23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
842:23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
818:23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
771:23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
737:23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
692:23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
669:23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
612:project's importance scale
364:project's importance scale
2182:06:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
1808:20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
1492:19:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
1271:Miscellaneous information
1242:Awards given by Softpedia
1033:06:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
783:, explains that only the
605:
538:
498:
476:
425:
379:
357:
298:
271:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
2174:Stephen Charles Thompson
1919:18:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
1875:17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
1763:McAfee SiteAdvisor quote
1675:the community at large.
1254:History of major changes
1025:Stephen Charles Thompson
437:This article is part of
1801:), please state it. --
1784:absolutely no relevance
686:Knowledge:Copyright_FAQ
662:Knowledge:Verifiability
2323:All Computing articles
1699:
1292:Reporting broken links
495:
376:
326:information technology
253:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
2343:All Websites articles
2318:All Software articles
1942:avoid self-references
1899:and of commenting on
1707:comment was added by
1691:
1541:Free Download Manager
1278:Navigation and search
1221:I have no objections.
1208:I have no objections.
656:admins and ask them.
502:WikiProject Computing
494:
375:
313:WikiProject Computing
100:Neutral point of view
2231:Request for deletion
2145:Image is outdated.
2036:Talk to you later!
781:Knowledge:Notability
569:WikiProject Internet
440:WikiProject Websites
383:WikiProject Software
105:No original research
1897:assuming good faith
1946:original synthesis
1890:dispute resolution
1169:Category structure
496:
377:
344:Computing articles
259:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
2151:comment added by
2058:
2042:comment added by
1984:comment added by
1720:
1482:another blog post
1401:
1394:
1389:
1185:Membership system
637:-ridiculous fish
626:
625:
622:
621:
618:
617:
592:Internet articles
517:
516:
513:
512:
463:Websites articles
398:
397:
394:
393:
239:
238:
211:
210:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
2365:
2212:or something. --
2210:download website
2163:
2077:reliable sources
2037:
1996:
1951:reliable sources
1910:personal attacks
1780:personal attacks
1742:Year of founding
1702:
1397:
1392:
1388:
1386:
1380:
1379:
1376:
1370:
594:
593:
590:
587:
584:
563:
558:
557:
547:
540:
539:
534:
526:
519:
518:
483:importance scale
465:
464:
461:
458:
455:
434:
427:
426:
421:
418:
407:
400:
399:
346:
345:
342:
339:
336:
307:
300:
299:
294:
291:
280:
273:
272:
256:
250:
249:
241:
220:
213:
192:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2373:
2372:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2364:
2363:
2362:
2283:
2282:
2266:reliable source
2233:
2189:
2187:Malware section
2169:
2146:
2143:
2026:
1979:
1927:
1925:Just Some Facts
1765:
1744:
1729:
1703:—The preceding
1701:WHAT evidence?
1690:
1672:
1640:
1587:
1557:I've added the
1555:
1537:
1522:
1458:Ridiculous fish
1400:
1377:
1374:
1373:
1368:
1363:
1353:Ridiculous fish
1074:Company profile
1066:
1045:Ridiculous fish
1011:Ridiculous fish
990:Ridiculous fish
958:Ridiculous fish
865:Ridiculous fish
839:Ridiculous fish
815:Ridiculous fish
785:topics of pages
768:Ridiculous fish
734:Ridiculous fish
689:Ridiculous fish
666:Ridiculous fish
650:
631:
591:
588:
585:
582:
581:
561:Internet portal
559:
552:
532:
479:High-importance
462:
459:
456:
453:
452:
420:High‑importance
419:
413:
343:
340:
337:
334:
333:
292:
286:
257:on Knowledge's
254:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2371:
2361:
2360:
2355:
2350:
2345:
2340:
2335:
2330:
2325:
2320:
2315:
2310:
2305:
2300:
2295:
2281:
2280:
2261:
2232:
2229:
2227:
2225:
2224:
2188:
2185:
2168:
2165:
2142:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2093:
2092:
2081:and attributed
2025:
2022:
2021:
2020:
1986:193.109.72.246
1963:
1962:
1926:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1893:
1886:
1843:
1835:
1827:
1818:
1817:
1812:
1764:
1761:
1743:
1740:
1728:
1725:
1723:
1689:
1686:
1671:
1668:
1659:
1657:
1655:
1653:
1651:
1649:
1646:
1643:
1639:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1605:
1604:
1586:
1583:
1554:
1551:
1536:
1533:
1527:85.103.223.209
1521:
1518:
1496:
1468:
1466:
1464:
1463:
1455:
1447:
1446:
1443:
1440:
1437:
1431:
1428:
1425:
1422:
1418:
1417:
1412:
1411:
1398:
1362:
1359:
1350:
1349:
1344:Netcraft is a
1342:
1339:
1336:
1333:
1330:
1327:
1324:
1316:External links
1313:
1312:
1311:
1304:Softpedia Poll
1301:
1300:
1299:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1268:
1264:
1263:
1251:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1233:No objections.
1224:
1223:
1222:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1071:
1065:
1062:
1059:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1003:
1002:
1001:
996:
995:
970:
969:
968:
964:
963:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
918:
915:
907:
906:
905:
904:
894:
893:
892:
891:
877:
876:
871:
870:
852:
851:
850:
845:
844:
827:
826:
825:
821:
820:
803:
802:
801:
797:
796:
795:
794:
774:
773:
747:
746:
745:
740:
739:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
700:
699:
695:
694:
678:
677:
676:
672:
671:
649:
646:
644:
630:
627:
624:
623:
620:
619:
616:
615:
608:Mid-importance
604:
598:
597:
595:
578:the discussion
565:
564:
548:
536:
535:
533:Mid‑importance
527:
515:
514:
511:
510:
507:Low-importance
497:
487:
486:
475:
469:
468:
466:
435:
423:
422:
408:
396:
395:
392:
391:
388:Mid-importance
378:
368:
367:
360:Low-importance
356:
350:
349:
347:
330:the discussion
308:
296:
295:
293:Low‑importance
281:
269:
268:
262:
251:
237:
236:
229:the discussion
221:
209:
208:
201:the discussion
193:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2370:
2359:
2356:
2354:
2351:
2349:
2346:
2344:
2341:
2339:
2336:
2334:
2331:
2329:
2326:
2324:
2321:
2319:
2316:
2314:
2311:
2309:
2306:
2304:
2301:
2299:
2296:
2294:
2291:
2290:
2288:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2267:
2262:
2259:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2250:
2249:
2245:
2242:
2240:
2237:
2228:
2223:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2199:
2195:
2184:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2164:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2153:91.17.197.251
2150:
2132:
2128:
2124:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2109:
2105:
2101:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2091:
2088:
2087:
2082:
2078:
2074:
2069:
2068:weasel worded
2065:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2034:
2030:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1961:
1958:
1957:
1952:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1933:
1920:
1917:
1916:
1911:
1907:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1891:
1887:
1884:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1873:
1867:
1863:
1861:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1810:
1809:
1806:
1805:
1800:
1796:
1791:
1789:
1785:
1781:
1776:
1774:
1770:
1760:
1759:
1756:
1755:
1749:
1746:According to
1739:
1736:
1732:
1724:
1721:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1709:80.97.183.187
1706:
1698:
1696:
1685:
1684:
1681:
1676:
1667:
1666:
1663:
1629:
1626:
1622:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1614:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1603:
1600:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1591:
1582:
1581:
1578:
1573:
1572:
1569:
1565:
1560:
1550:
1549:
1546:
1542:
1532:
1531:
1528:
1517:
1514:
1510:
1507:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1493:
1490:
1485:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1473:
1467:
1462:
1459:
1456:
1453:
1449:
1448:
1444:
1441:
1438:
1436:
1432:
1429:
1426:
1423:
1420:
1419:
1414:
1413:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1402:
1395:
1390:
1385:
1381:
1371:
1358:
1357:
1354:
1347:
1343:
1340:
1337:
1334:
1331:
1328:
1325:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1317:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1305:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1293:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1279:
1275:
1272:
1267:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1255:
1250:
1247:
1246:
1243:
1235:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1228:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1215:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1187:
1186:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1155:
1154:Site Sections
1147:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1140:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1127:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1112:screencapped.
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1090:
1089:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1075:
1070:
1061:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1018:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
998:
997:
994:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
974:
973:
966:
965:
962:
959:
954:
953:
952:
943:
939:
935:
930:
929:
928:
927:
919:
916:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
902:
898:
897:
896:
895:
889:
888:search engine
885:
881:
880:
879:
878:
873:
872:
869:
866:
862:
858:
857:
856:
847:
846:
843:
840:
836:
832:
831:
830:
823:
822:
819:
816:
812:
808:
807:
806:
799:
798:
793:
790:
786:
782:
778:
777:
776:
775:
772:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
752:
751:
742:
741:
738:
735:
731:
727:
726:
725:
716:
712:
708:
704:
703:
702:
701:
697:
696:
693:
690:
687:
683:
682:
681:
674:
673:
670:
667:
663:
659:
658:
657:
653:
645:
642:
638:
635:
613:
609:
603:
600:
599:
596:
579:
575:
571:
570:
562:
556:
551:
549:
546:
542:
541:
537:
531:
528:
525:
521:
520:
508:
505:(assessed as
504:
503:
493:
489:
488:
484:
480:
474:
471:
470:
467:
450:
446:
442:
441:
436:
433:
429:
428:
424:
417:
412:
409:
406:
402:
401:
389:
386:(assessed as
385:
384:
374:
370:
369:
365:
361:
355:
352:
351:
348:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
314:
309:
306:
302:
301:
297:
290:
285:
282:
279:
275:
274:
270:
266:
260:
252:
248:
243:
242:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
215:
214:
206:
202:
198:
194:
191:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
2251:
2246:
2243:
2234:
2226:
2190:
2170:
2144:
2086:Black Falcon
2084:
2080:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2024:Malware Site
1966:
1964:
1956:Black Falcon
1954:
1928:
1915:Black Falcon
1913:
1900:
1882:
1868:
1864:
1859:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1825:Download.com
1819:
1811:
1804:Black Falcon
1802:
1795:not relevant
1792:
1787:
1783:
1777:
1766:
1754:Black Falcon
1752:
1745:
1737:
1733:
1730:
1722:
1700:
1694:
1692:
1677:
1673:
1641:
1592:
1588:
1574:
1556:
1538:
1523:
1515:
1511:
1505:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1486:
1480:
1476:
1469:
1465:
1451:
1364:
1351:
1345:
1315:
1314:
1303:
1302:
1291:
1290:
1277:
1276:
1270:
1269:
1265:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1241:
1240:
1226:
1225:
1213:
1212:
1202:
1198:
1197:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1157:
1153:
1152:
1148:Fair enough.
1142:
1138:
1137:
1133:Fair enough.
1128:
1125:
1121:Fair enough.
1116:
1103:
1094:
1091:
1088:Introduction
1087:
1086:
1077:
1073:
1072:
1067:
1060:-CableguyTK
1058:
1038:
1004:
1000:screenshot).
971:
949:
853:
828:
804:
789:BenBildstein
784:
748:
722:
679:
654:
651:
643:
639:
636:
632:
607:
567:
500:
478:
449:project page
438:
381:
359:
311:
265:WikiProjects
232:
205:no consensus
204:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
2252:-sanstaafl
2214:Enric Naval
2147:—Preceding
2038:—Preceding
1980:—Preceding
1472:Hugo's blog
1139:Screenshots
1099:Fair enough
255:Start-class
148:free images
31:not a forum
2287:Categories
2123:Campuscodi
2083:. Cheers,
1872:Cableguytk
1769:attributed
1662:Cableguytk
1648:Knowledge.
1625:Dachannien
1613:Cableguytk
1599:Dachannien
1568:Dachannien
986:Amazon.com
764:Amazon.com
1535:Criticism
1489:Arnljot76
1361:reversion
901:Softpedia
416:Computing
335:Computing
322:computing
318:computers
284:Computing
88:if needed
71:Be polite
25:Softpedia
21:talk page
2270:Qwyrxian
2194:Qwyrxian
2149:unsigned
2052:contribs
2040:unsigned
2010:5thWheel
1982:unsigned
1906:civility
1705:unsigned
1695:actively
1638:To Frigo
1520:Not safe
1410:version.
1286:article.
934:Sugarbat
707:Sugarbat
583:Internet
574:Internet
530:Internet
454:Websites
445:websites
411:Websites
289:Software
225:deletion
197:deletion
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1901:content
629:Heading
610:on the
481:on the
362:on the
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
2100:Jarhed
2073:policy
2044:Jarhed
1841:Simtel
1833:Tucows
1680:Jarhed
1621:WP:OWN
1559:Advert
1553:Advert
1378:Jester
982:Yahoo!
884:Google
760:Yahoo!
648:To RF:
324:, and
261:scale.
126:Google
2141:Image
1932:JTH01
1912:. --
1688:Reply
1577:Frigo
1545:Frigo
1506:every
1399:Fire!
1346:major
1310:Eh...
1298:Eh...
903:, is:
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
2274:talk
2218:talk
2198:talk
2178:talk
2157:talk
2127:talk
2104:talk
2064:WP:V
2048:talk
2014:talk
1990:talk
1908:and
1883:duty
1748:this
1713:talk
1585:Sigh
1375:SWAT
1029:talk
978:EBay
938:talk
756:EBay
711:talk
473:High
233:keep
231:was
203:was
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1862:."
1645:do.
1393:Aim
602:Mid
354:Low
176:TWL
2289::
2276:)
2241:.
2220:)
2200:)
2180:)
2159:)
2129:)
2106:)
2054:)
2050:•
2016:)
1992:)
1839:-
1831:-
1823:-
1790:.
1715:)
1623:--
1566:--
1474:.
1064:re
1031:)
984:,
980:,
940:)
813:.
762:,
758:,
713:)
509:).
414::
390:).
320:,
287::
156:)
54:;
2272:(
2216:(
2196:(
2176:(
2155:(
2125:(
2102:(
2046:(
2012:(
1988:(
1719:.
1711:(
1658:.
1656:.
1654:.
1369:⇒
1027:(
936:(
709:(
614:.
485:.
451:.
366:.
267::
235:.
207:.
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
