, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This to SarekOfVulcan.  I tried to discuss this civilized but I was talking to walls, I would say something, the editor something else but not addressing my question or point. 

In my opinion, if you don't accept what I wanted to say regarding softpedia, without a reference from a "trusted entity", you should delete also Softpedia words related to how they diligently check all their software to make sure that no viruses/malware are attached. Why you don't do that? On what "reputable, verifiable" source is based their assertion? You said that Wikipedia doesn’t advertise, it is independent. If you obey this policy, an article from a profit business like softpedia should say only “ this is who we are, this is what we do, this is who uses us” and that’s it, nothing related to “how they do it”. As soon as you accept that plug-in, that’s advertising, with no verifiable “trusted sourse”. You don’t accept counter-argument/opinion to their assertion (w-out verificable sourse), that is equal with Wikipedia being biased. Can you dialog with me regarding to what I just said, as you mention before? Thank you.  22:31