Talk:VReel

Reasoning for page Reverts
I'd think it is quite clear why I have reverted Unique user name's edits but let me go over it here. The starting commentary on Zango is WP:DUE. The random commentary in the second paragraph is clearly WP:NORN and WP:SOAP. The E-mail is highly un-encyclopaedic as was decided earlier by other editors. And then finally, the last paragraph is again WP:SOAP. Bios Element (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since he has done at least 3 reverts in the last 24 hours, I've warned him for 3RR. If he keeps reverting, it might be worth reporting him to the 3RR noticeboard. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your whole reasoning is bias, why do you have such a problem with the bad points in vreels history being mentioned? 82.42.231.64 (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Unique user name
 * I'd rather you not personally attack me as per WP:NPA. I do not have a bias, I am far from the only one who sees this in your editing. I'm sorry if you feel I'm biased however It's already been explained to you several times, for each part of your edit, why it is not acceptable. Bios Element (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how having such a one sided version of a compnys history is supposed to be neutral? is it the way im wording my additions? or are you just not allowed to point out negative yet completely truthful and verifiable parts of vreels history? also i apologise for the personal attack it was unintended, howver i do get a feeling that ther is definatley some bias views in the whole wiki article due to the fact that it is mostly edited by Vreel admin, surely such people are bound to have bias views due to the fact they get paid by said company. 82.42.231.64 (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC) (unique user name) edit* also i have not had any specific explanations about the removal of my edits, i have had one attempt at sarcasm and been pointed towards irrelevant/contradictary rules i.e. The rules that explain all posts should be neutral : all my posts have offered a verifiable source to cite and a point which counters the rest of the owner-added fluff the article is made up of. 82.42.231.64 (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC) (unique user name)
 * Firstly, sign your posts. Secondly, I'm glad you've seen that your previous edits were somewhat pointless since your no longer spamming them back up. However the line "Former Zango sponsored site" Is ireelevent in the overview. The point of an overview is to give people a quick, 15 second read about the article. Not a history lesson. If you would like, feel free to improve the history area of the article further down, however it's silly to have it the very first line. And Yet again i point out I do not have a bias and i have clearly stated my reasoning every single time in the best way i know how. Bios Element (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly: i did sign my post, then i added an "*edit", now considering it auto lists my ip aswell, i didnt think it was needed. Secondly: unless you are a Vreel admin i wasn't accusing you of being bias again, if you re-read my post it is quite clear. Thirdly: I believe with zango having such a "bad" history and the fact it gets flagged by all AV programs as Malware, the fact of Vreel being a "former zango sponsored site" is the most important thing that should be in the article. Fourthly: as for my edits or as you call them "spamming them back up" i will continue to re-add them i am just working on the wording, references and finding similar style statements on other wiki pages which have been deemed acceptable, i will not let this go, i demand that the wiki page represents a true depiction of vreel's woeful history. 82.42.231.64 (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC) (unique user name)
 * Sure! The article needs improvement. But by all means don't make this a bashing attack on the site. Like your trying to make it out to be. Zango is and was a useful program for adware. The point of it was to make money. It does not mean that using the program is a blackmark for the company. It did exactly what it said it did. I had it installed during the first beta and it was nothing more then adware. It got flagged as malware because people who did not know it was installed (As installers can sometimes be sneaky) It could be removed. IT was "possibly unwanted adware" as you could see from reading the wiki page on Zango. Continuing to violate the 3RR Rule as I've warned you already on. Bios Element (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

One question: regarding Moriellas email, how come that was removed? i linked to the page on vreel were vreel-admin gave ther reply. Also i think the fact it was sent via Unsolicited mass email to 10,000+ members makes it a memorable moment in vreel history?. 82.42.231.64 (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC) (unique user name)
 * If you think their is no stigma attatched to zango and the fact that they used it on vreel is ok...what is the problem with it being mentioned? The fact is, Like ALL reputable security sources have demonstrated, zango creates many security flaws in a system when it is installed. however i wont debate the merits of zango As ther is no credible evidence to defend it whatsoever.  Like i said earlier i am rewriting my edits and will try by best to make sure all is within the rules & reg's
 * Zango is further in the article and regardless, doesn't belong in the overview. Moriella's E-mail was removed for several reasons. Firstly, Because it is not encyclopaedic. Secondly, because a simple link to the forums would have done the tick. And the "Unsolicited mass email" is impossible to cite so it's pointless to have anyway so without an official statement from Vreel, it can't be proved. And I rather doubt they'll give us one. Bios Element (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i will not include the email itself, but i can mention it and then link to the page at vreel/board. As for the email being unsolicited...well i can only assume you havnt read the thread i linked to because Vreel-Eoin (site owner/admin) acknowledges the fact it was unsolicited and apologises for it, so it can be cited and is 100% provable (**i will add links here later**). As for zango being mentioned in the overview, i concede and will not continue to alter it, however i will be creating a section about the zango era of vreel. 82.42.231.64 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC) (unique user name)
 * And if you do I'll remove it. I'm working on updating the page which will have a timeline of sorts for the history and Zango will be included in it. (Give me a day or so to work on it, I'm trying to beef up the page a bit.) Vreel-Eoin Never stated that the mail was unsolicited. He said sorry for it being sent, but he never stated it was un-soliicted. I have indeed read the thread several times now. So add the cite links now or I'll remove anything in the article about that. Bios Element (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As for Vreel-Eoin... He did and here is what he said...
 * Quote from bios>>"And if you do I'll remove it."<< What will you remove? i mentioned a couple of things.

..........I would like to personally apologise for the confusion and frustration caused by the unsolicited email distributed by Moriella - I hope this has cleared that up for you. If not, please let me know here if you need anything explained in any greater detail.

We're still launching our closed beta v2 on the tenth - I truly hope you're all here to join us again and build our community up to the levels which we believe you all deserve.

If you're in, sign here.

Eoghan Hayes..............

Here is the link It is  six (6) lines up from the bottom of the first post By Vreel-Eoin.

So... just to remind you what you said earlier... "I have indeed read the thread several times now. So add the cite links now or I'll remove anything in the article about that." I will expect you to keep your word, and i would reccomend reading things properly before disputing them on a public board. 82.42.231.64 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC) (unique user name)
 * Very well then, Ya proved me wrong. Nice work. Last i looked, that's the point of a DISCUSSION. Generally speaking to debate one thing or another. Regardless, I'm working on the timeline and should have it finished in a few hours. Bios Element (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fairplay, i think i was getting a bit emotional towards the end ther, i will gather a few of my links & ref's etc for the parts i would like added & post them here later/tomorow to get some opinions. 82.42.231.64 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC) (unique user name)

Future features in Beta 2
I've not been closely following VReel developments, but why was Zango permanently removed? That site is now defunct? ~ Geaugagrrl talk 17:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, It's not. http://www.zango.com/ is still online. It wasn't something the site owners wanted to do because it was generally annoying to visitors. But at the time they were in serious need of server funds to keep things online so they had no choice. As soon as they were able to go without it, They removed it. Bios Element (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is Vreel claming it has removed Zango. When the current HTML code refers to Zango. I be more than happy to present my findings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.181.32.146 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably because Zango isn't/wasn't there and without a cite I'll keep removing your unfounded edits. Bios Element (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)