Talk:UCoz

Cleanup templates
1. Regarding the following remark: '''This article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (March 2009)'''.

The article has been updated, may I remove the remark now ?

2. As for the second remark This article needs additional citations for verification. - New sources were added, but then they were removed:

* TV broadcasting of the award presentation ceremony * laureate of a popular award – Golden Website 2008 * laureate of a popular award – Golden Website 2007

What should I do to remove the remark ? Meskalyto (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Find third party Reliable Sources and not Original Research.  16x9 (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 16x9, those are 3rd party reliable sources. You removed them and claimed they were spam. I suggest you read up on just exactly what spam is because you clearly can't tell the difference. You don't own this article and I suggest you let Meskalyto attempt to improve it since you clearly don't have any interest in expanding or improving it yourself. Tothwolf (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take your bad faith else where. I have never laid claim to any article. Maskalyto needs to find a reliable sources that is not the "award" site saying that ucoz won the award.  16x9 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "award site" is a perfectly acceptable source as it is independent of uCoz itself. You seem to have forgotten that that your accusations of bad faith got you nowhere the last time you tried that during the DRV. I suggest you find another article to stalk and let Meskalyto work on expanding this one. Tothwolf (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If that site/company is giving the award to ucoz that they would not be independent. Also I did not make an accusation just a statement of fact that you assume bad faith.  I have not claimed this article or stalked it any more than you have (unless you really are claiming it as yours and in that case you stalk it more than me.)  16x9 (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly acceptable to state in an article that an award was received and then reference the site that awarded it. This is the same thing you tried to argue at DRV. WP:STICK Tothwolf (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Having analized all what is said above, I come to the conclusion that the information about awards is necessary in the article. Those are independent sources that prove notability of the article subject.

4. How do you think, should I provide scanned copies of indepednent magazines with analytical articles about the subject, proving its importance?Meskalyto (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Peculiarities Section
Regarding: The statement "Being a SaaS system, uCoz has SaaS features — closed source code, unavailability of runnig of server-side scripts and databases" in the "Peculiarities" section.

This statement is untrue. SaaS features are not "unavailability of running of server-side scripts and databases". A number of SaaS CMS solutions allow the running of server-side scripts within a protective environment, and allow users to have their own databases. Such databases are often given a user specific prefix to ensure a unique name when running on a shared web server. I'm not editing the article directly as I could be accused of having a COI. Sendalldavies (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "...server-side scripts like JavaScript.": I thought JavaScript was a "client-side" language. What am I missing? lifeform (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Oddly gives the feeling of an advertisement
This page feels like an advertisement when I read it. In my opinion, it should have an extreme redo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugzeeolboy (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)