Talk:Ledlenser

Accuracy?

 * I think we have had enough inaccuracies of the front page for a bit.... Qwirkle (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I am sure you will be able to clearly detail any such inaccuracies instead of making cryptic comments, maintenance tagging without giving valid reason and assuming bad faith WP:APF? Also making up stuff about single purpose accounts when you can check my history to find more than one. Arthur Sparknottle (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Gentle Reader, check his contributions: nothing but this article, and some desultory attempts at borderline libel on a single other subject. Sprung into existence fully finished, like a low-rent Botticelli, this editor of two and one half month’s standing wishes his corporate hagiography to be on the main page. A bad idea on so many levels. Qwirkle (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you didn't bother reading WP:APF or clearly explain your bad faith edits. This conversation remains a bit pointless until you do. How about going and tagging the German version and personally attacking and insulting the editors who created that, because it didn't just "spring into existence" and is almost exactly the same? Perhaps the moderators there will deal with this atrocious behaviour that drags the encyclopedia into disrepute. Arthur Sparknottle (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You two please stop it, both. Quirkle, please mark disputed facts, not a whole article. The article doesn't read like advertisement to me, nor Yoninah, please remove that tag altogether. You seem not to know WP:BRD (or would not revert back. - I have zero time, travel. Will look deeper, perhaps tomorrow. - I gave this a header to clearly separate from the DYK review. Feel free to change it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To begin with, it is trivial to find earlier earlier examples of LED flashlights...and indeed, the nomination template transcluded mentioned this explicitly,, until you removed it here. Arc, whose wiki article has, oddly enough, recently been deleted, might be another contender. Qwirkle (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

ALT0 should be struck out because it is provably wrong.
, is there any place on this mess to discuss technological facts that are, as you wrote, clearly wrong? Several projects would do a good job about specific topic areas - military, aircraft and so forth, and others, like this, tie into so many subject areas that it is difficult to keep “alternative facts” in place, but more ordinary technology? Can’t see a place for it. Qwirkle (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You are perhaps suggesting a list article? I think you would have to have a few strong list sources before you start, or you would be violating WP:SYNTH. Sources that list false product claims.
 * Or maybe you are not talking about a page in mainspace, but in Wikipedia space? Something in the nature of List of hoaxes on Wikipedia? An interesting suggestion, either way. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, or even along the lines of the hoax list’s talk page. There doesn’t really seem to be any focal point for simple misinformation, as opposed to hoaxes and disinformation. Here’s a pretty good example of how stuff gets caught, anyone who worked with electronic displays, with fiber optics data transmission, and so forth would readily see the “fact” advanced above as false, and we got a lotta geeks around here. But you can literally get a claim that mops were invented in the twentieth century on wiki. Qwirkle (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)