If it said "It also supports CSS 2.1, and all parts of CSS 3 already implemented by Gecko.", that's neutral and fine. The problem is things like "It also offer support for CSS 2.1, and all parts of CSS 3 already implemented by Gecko without requiring deep technical knowledge of the underlying Web Standards." Factual, yes, promotional, yes. Glazou ( Glazou) 16:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Reply Haha, a new web editor isn't the slightest threat to what I do. So please tell us what's the point ranting again? Just apply the policy for the policy w/o being even _a little bit_ pragmatic? Or do you have yourself some kind of conflict of interest and BlueGriffon itself represents a threat for you, your work, your employer, whatever? I just do not understand you at all, sorry. Nobody stood up to add those data EVEN IF contributions to the deletion page were added, so I added them and they're not questionable. But **you** are the one who requested more data and more references to stop deleting this page. Even w/o the wikipedia policies, I am myself reluctant to edit an article about my own work. There is not one single subjective piece of information added. Terrillja talk 16:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Reply all my additions to the page are strictly factual, and verifiable. Which parts are you referring to? SC ( talk) 14:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Reply I believe that I have removed the content that is clearly in violation, but I will have to take another look. Reference "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." Yes, Daniel clarified the results of the 2010 Open World Forum. Bluegriffon community software#
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |