Talk:Panda Software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This sounds more like an advert and doesn't cover many aspects expected in a software page, such as a solid evaluation of the software.

Wouldn't be surprised if Panda paid some of his employees to keep the wikipedia page like an ad.

It still reads like an advert. So I would propose this article for deletion.

User:atenea26, 15:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at the spam section, it's rather critical, how could it be and ad?.

Hardly not a advert, the productinformation is not up to date.

To remebre is that Panda Software is the world 4th largest antivirussupplier in the world (Gartner 2006)

If this is an advert, what is the difference between this and eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAfee or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Associates for naming two compeditors?

I agree with that it does read like an advert with the information given and the way it's formatted.

User:fatla00, August 26, 2006

Contents 1 This is a stub 2 Spam affair 3 Scientology? 4 Criticism section

[edit] This is a stub

I think that needs more information, in order to be complete.User:Atenea26, 15:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam affair

the fact that panda sends spam isn't proved, but not occurs the same with fact that people complaint about panda sending spam. I think that it is clear. So, please don't start a edit war --User:Atenea26 10:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably, it was a spam e-mail sent with a technique, which lets it look like it's sent by Panda Software, while it isn't. About the unsubscription link: this is a much used method to check if e-mail adresses are real. 83.118.22.146 19:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The spam was as real as it gets. If you follow ref#4 in the spam section, and read the updates to the original article you'll find Panda's Product Manager acknowledging the fact, apologizing yet being powerless to stop the spam.

[edit] Scientology?

I'm concerned that the "Panda software and scientology" section has absolutely no citations. This is a pretty serious accusation to be leveling at it, and I would think something credible to back it up would be needed. --ZantTrang 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it until such time as somebody is able to cite a reliable source in support of the connection. --Michael Snow 03:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

When Panda first rolled out its antivirus service, people were buzzing about it being either owned or produced by strict Scientologists. Any truth here? If so it definitely this certainly merits noting in the article (as a matter of "the whole truth" and public safety). Also, if this question is edited out without comment, you can expect to blow some whistles. 74.132.209.231 19:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The existing link to whats suppose to be something about Panda and the Scientology is not valied (404). And from what I know this is not true, more than that one of (not all) the owners are involved in the church. But does what one of the owners do on their spearetime effect the company. I bet you found many owners to Symantec that has some "odd" preferences... ;)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/05/03/panda_software_linked_to_church/

I have removed those allegations as they are not related to the company but to its founder. They should be in the founder's page. User:Berrinet 17 Sept 2006

[edit] Criticism section

I am adding a rewritten Criticism section to help bring some balance to this article and work toward removing the disconcerting but accurate {{advertisement}} tag. Am placing the section towards the top so it doesn't get lost among the lists of available products. --CliffC 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This criticism is unfair as those spam emails were an effort to discredit Panda Software and were sent from some malicious sources. Panda was never responsible for any of them and had no way to fight back, anyhow. This section should be removed for the sake of fairness-- Jpierreg 18:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}. Any citations would make a good counterpoint to the criticism, and might even be positive for Panda's image, as the spamming claims seem to go way back. --CliffC 19:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)