Talk:WordPress.com

message: How long are WordPress.com free blogs kept online?  What actions are needed, how often, to keep the blog name reserved and online?  It seems that google policy is to keep blogspot blog names reserved "forever", and keep the content online "forever", without requiring any further action.  There is controversy about this, and agitation to at least be able to recover blog names that are not being used, to let someone else use them.-69.87.202.28 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time period 

message: Since some folks take offense to what I write here, I'll politely point out that the statement that "All the basic and original features (current as of May 2006) of the site are free-to-use." is incorrect.  When Private blogs were first introduced, they had no limit.  This was changed to only permit 35 users to be able to access private blogs.  A fee was changed if you wanted additional users to have access.  --Drmike (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The original features are free issue 

message: There is talk of wordpress.com running on proprietary code but without any citation. Can somebody put up a citation for the same? Shirishag75 (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for Wordpress.com running on proprietary code 

message: How is being susceptible to a DDoS a vulnerability? Nearly any website on the Internet, including Wikipedia, is susceptible to a DDoS. Viper007Bond (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vulnerabilities" Section 

message: As of 12 June 2011 wordpress.com is blocked in Kazakhstan. Please, spread this. --95.56.106.149 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kazakhstan 

message: For around a month, WordPress appeared to be blocking Nicaraguan IP addresses.  Complaints were made publically on Google+ and LiveJournal and someone tried to blame the blocks on Claro or the Nicaraguan government.  Nicaraguan IPs are fairly frequently blocked by small geek-run sites for being associated with spamming, and have been blocked by other services, most notably LiveJournal, when LJ was under DOS attack.  The block was lifted on 2/20/2012 after early morning failures to reach a WordPress.com blog.  One Nicaraguan user had a WordPress blog and had suspected Claro's 3G service but attempts to contact other WorldPress blogs or the Wordpress.com site itself over a period of a month, at different times and with different signal strengths and types all failed.  As of 2/20/2012, three different testers said that the main site and others were available again. This seemed to be uniquely a block by WordPress as Claro allowed connections to Pirate Bay during that time and the Nicaraguan government does not appear to block sites, including ones hostile to it.
MizOre (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocks by WordPress 

message: Apparently WordPress.com deleted a number of adult blogs around July 2013, according to this post. Unless we can find more sources, this doesn't belong in the article, but I thought it worth mentioning here. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of adult blogs? 

message: The subject matter - the level of third part advertising in free WordPress sites - is legitimate, but in the version of 25 August 2015, the content is extremely inappropriate on several counts:
* It is written in part as an argumentative dialogue (probably because it was).
* It addresses the reader (of this Wikipedia article) in the second person ("you") when actually referring to the creator of a WordPress.com web site, and in a very un-encyclopaedic informal (and subjective) tone.
* It offers advice and a preference on an advertising choice for WordPress.com customer administrators.
* It is written in conjunction phrases rather than sentences. And so is this example.
* It cites a reference that doesn't contain the target text.
* ...
I did not modify the section, as I am not familiar with the subject matter. If it doesn't get completely re-written by someone familiar with the subject matter and the Wikipedia guidelines, then I would suggest complete removal of this section. Here is the permanent link to the version I am referring to.
With thanks from ChrisJBenson (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising section is extremely inapprorpiate 

message: This article should explain how it relates to the open source project. It's very confusing otherwise. Come on people! 202.154.147.97 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wordpress.org 

message: Regarding this revert. The blog post being cited is a random blog which fails WP:UGC and WP:SPS. The apparent claim is that the blog was taken down, and this may or may not be because "They Disapproved of the Content". This, in turn, may or may not be censorship, since we don't have a reliable source mentioning this or attempting to find out why they "disapproved". WordPress likely takes down countless pages in any given day, for various reasons. Without a reliable source, which would necessarily be an independent source, this doesn't belong on the article. If this has received independent coverage, we would use that to contextualize what happened, and why it was significant. Grayfell (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theory blog sources