User talk:RebQQtz

VNPT
The text you added to the VNPT article is not encyclopedic in tone, and seems to be using unpublished sources. DHN (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to agree with you my dear, just when Google will state in it's front page to be an unreliable, unpublished source, or when none of the ip addresses assigned to VNPT will resolve as "localhost". RebQQtz (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read up on Wikipedia's policy regarding original research. DHN (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your suggestion, i should be very grateful if you would clarify in what the information added by me violates original research RebQQtz (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can find a reliable source that says that VNPT is a known spam host (such as Spamhaus). Google search results are not considered reliable. DHN (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Crystal clear, thank you very much, i will revise my edit according to your suggestion, btw do you think that WHOIS queries and VPNT DNS servers queries are a reliable published source ? RebQQtz (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course they're reliable, but what does showing that a certain IP resolves to VNPT prove? DHN (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)