Talk:FirstClass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Universities quiting FirstClass

This information was posted on this web page and deleted. For example Univ. of Liverpool already switched to BlackBoard due to a huge number of complains about critical bugs and lack of decent functionality in FirstClass. http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/csd/blackboard/scripts/ Maury DO NOT DELETE THIS INFO AGAIN! It is not your choice to decide it the visitors should be informed about the bug in FirstClass software or not.

[edit] FAKE INFO

There is a paragraph saying that FirstClass v9.1 appeared in January of 2008 and that it fixed many bugs. But there is no such thing on the official web site: http://www.intl.firstclass.com/Downloads/Clients FirstClass is as buggy as ever. Probably the most buggy software I ever used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedra (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "FirstClass version 9.0 was released in June of 2007, followed by 9.1 in January of 2008. In addition to bugfixes, major new features in 9.0 included an automatic server-based and policy-driven archiving service for legal..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedra (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement

I'm again adding the spam tag to First Class

Here are just a few examples...

The article refers to a "superior BBS" . "SoftArc had grown into a major Mac software vendor" How many sales? What's the definition of "major" "has over 10 million users " - not cited.

"By the mid-1990s the product was used for the vast majority of Mac BBSes, and their popularity only increased with the introduction of a Microsoft Windows client." - Again no citation



[edit] SD tag

Give me a break. An anon user posts an AD tag to the page without any explaination. I remove, at which point he/she posts several fairly minor points to my talk page. I come back to find this SD instead. I'm inclined simply to delete it. Maury 21:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SD declined

I declined the speedy deletion of this article for the following reasons:

  1. I've heard of this thing in "real life", so there's a chance it can be notable.
  2. Requested CSD G12, but this is hardly "blatant" spam.
  3. Requested CSD A7 website, but this article is about a software product, not a website.
  4. Alleged conflicts of interest are not a valid reason to speedy delete an article as such. However, they may be grounds for an AfD discussion.
  5. In any case, I'd be extremely hesitant to speedy-delete an article that has existed since 2005.

So if anyone still feels strongly about this, please consider AfD instead. Note, however, that possible biases, adversitory language and other problems like that are (in my opinion) better handled through ordinary cleanup - please tag accordingly. Have a nice day. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove failure to cite?

I and others have added quite a few citations and sources to this article, and removed some of the more subjective material. Is it good enough at this point to remove the "failure to cite" tag on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DLLHell (talk • contribs) 05:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)