Wikipedia:Peer review/Rolex/archive1

Rolex
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is unilateral; it looks al an adverticement booklet. I got many such boocklets by email. The anti-rolex progranms trash these boolkets out from my mailbos. I was sure, that it is personal attack against me; them I discussed this with my colleagues, and it happens, that they also get a lot of rolex-messages. I begin to investigate this problem and found many independent confirmations that Rolex is famous spamming subject. Many other users delete the rolex messages without to open them. After to get such an evidence, I wanted to mention this in Wikipedia, and I found, that the name "rolex" is already occupied with the adverticement of a company, than has the same name. I tried to move the article to Rolex(company); then I tried to reproduce some part of its content in Rolex (company) but id did not work...

Therefore I ask some independent users (who neither buy any product of the Rolex (comapny), nor work for it) analyze the content of the article mentioned. I insist that in the present form it looks like adverticement of the company, occypying the name that deserve to be a disambig page. I insist that the main menaing of the word "Rolex" is spam: the number of rolex-messages greatly esceeds the number of watches prodiced by the company which carries the same name. I had offered references in support of my point of view. Please, recover my references for the discussion.

Thanks, dima (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have closed this Peer Review request because this is not a request for Peer Review. If you want to file a RFC, that would be more appropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)