Talk:Whirlpool (website)

message: This article really need a bit of a fix up. See the fix ups I did as examples. 220.233.48.200 11:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: Comparing Whirlpool to Slashdot and Sitepoint not only misses the point but misses it by a mile.  Both Slashdot and Sitepoint belong to corporations who use the sites are revenue generators, both carry advertising and in Sitepoints case the site exists only to push their products and forums are an adjunct of that.  These are not independant sites in any way or form (people clinging to the illusion of Slashdot independance need to grasp reality) and are not remotely like WP - the amount of money which has been spent on Slashdot's back end is truly astounding - it should be fast.
WP seldom has less than 1000 users on it most of the day, it has over 78'000 members, it is completely self supporting, Simon Wright does not seek money for memberships, does not accept advertising and funds the site pretty much from his own pocket aside from some money given voluntarily as donations - there is no comparison between the websites what so ever.
::Not useful to refer to a question as "stupid". The bombastic and defensive tone adopted here doesn't add  any weight to the points you point forward, which are in themselves fine. It seems that you may be an "insider" at Whirlpool as you are quoting specific figures. While your points are worth considering, I don't not accept that comparison is "stupid" and I especially don't accept that questions like this shouldn't be raised, and I don't think having been raised that pejoritive terms such as "stupid" need to be used to rebut them. After all the doubts weren't even entered into the article text, instead I took the more cautious approach of asking for comments, which you have offered. Just a pity you couldn't be a bit more gracious about it. In any case, the amount of money spent or available does not always indicate an excellent performance for a web site. I have noted that my bank's online facility, which after all must be regarded as having adequate access to funds, seems to degrade to quite unacceptable standards and to be frequently off-line. Also, I note that at an earlier version of Whirlpool used an Access database,, which had to be replaced with MySQL and I think that the system iS cfm on Windows. Perhaps if originallly written on open source technologies then it may have been cheaper and more efficient to run? So while I am prepared to believe that the whole thing is a great achievment, I wonder to what extent the statements about efficincy are factual or relate to any empirical evidence which actually, I highly doubt. --Wm 06:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid Comparisons 

message: This seems like unfounded crap to me. Whirlpool's FAQ states that it gets hosting from some outfit called WebCentral, and that most of the costs are paid by Simon Wright. If you have some shred of evidence to back up your claim, let's see it.
Silenceisfoo 04:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website maintained by Internode 

message: Just curious to know why the moderators of this site are listed, and I'm having dramas reconciling that with the concept of "encyclopedia". The proprietor, sure, but a bunch of anonymous individuals known mainly by handles rather than real names? To me, that has no place in an encyclopedia. In fact, the whole article comes across as a plug, but that's a tale for another day. Peter1968 17:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've gone ahead and gotten rid of it. The moderator info is totally non-notable information, especially from the world-wide encyclopedic point-of-view that Wikipedia presents. In addition, no other forum website entry I can find (e.g Slashdot ) lists moderator names, but rather moderation policies, which is possibly more relevant. Peter1968 10:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's Who...irrelevence? 

message: :Image:Whirlpool Screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Whirlpool Screenshot.jpg

message: :Image:Teal screen death.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Teal screen death.png

message: Guys, bone up on WP:CITE and WP:V before adding "references" to this article. A self-referencing citation (i.e pointing to a Whirlpool page to back up something on the Whirlpool article) isn't good enough. I'm not trying to be a dick about any of this, but it's the way things work around here. The article needs reliable and verifiable third party sources. End of story. Peter1968 (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to help improve the Whirlpool entry by adding third party sources. However, what is the situation when there is no third party source for certain information? No credible third party (that I can find) has commented on the unique facets of our moderation and policies, but they're still true and relevant. Could you perhaps assist me (and others) by providing an example of what might plausibly need a third party reference where one could be expected to exist? --Simon Wright (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, I have skimmed through WP:CITE (a how-to guide, less useful) and thoroughly read WP:V (which is well written and very useful). From what I can tell, most of the direct references which the article currently has handily satisfy the 7 criteria laid down in the section Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Would this be a reasonable conclusion to draw? --Simon Wright (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think third party sources are relevant when deciding the notability of a subject, but surely there is nothing wrong with the source itself being used as a reference?  I see nothing wrong with, for example, a Wikipedia article about an organisation saying it was founded in 1905, and then referencing to the "about us" page on that organisations website which states when it was founded and by whom.  Straight from the horses mouth. -- Chuq (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Recent edits suggest that Whirlpool was first hosted by Cyberhost. This is incorrect. Whirlpool was first hosted by Telstra in the free web space provided to BigPond Cable subscribers. It then moved to a Macintosh computer hosted on my residential BigPond Cable connection. Between mid 2000 and mid 2001 it was hosted by Cyberhost until they were acquired by OzHosting. Between mid 2001 and late 2008 it was hosted by WebCentral. It's currently hosted by Bulletproof Networks as stated in the article. --Simon Wright (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where Whirlpool was hosted 

message: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/218190,whirlpool-suffers-ddos-attack.aspx
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/218335,whirlpool-ddos-attacks-to-be-reported-to-police.aspx  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.220.188 (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2010 ddos attack

message: The comments say the alexa rank is automatically updated monthly with a bot. This has not happened in a year based on the dates shown. Any chance of bringing the autoupdate back? 124.171.114.33 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexa Rank

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Whirlpool (website). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524191214/http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=104170&p=2 to http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=104170&p=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Mote that, contrary to the description in this article, "deleted material may simply disappear from view",
(in 2017).
I had a question about sourcing joinery supplies deleted/disappeared because of a complaint/moderation.  It fell foul of the restrictions on discussing electrical trade work.  As such it wasn't archived/closed: it was totally disappeared.
I haven't changed the text because I don't want to get into an argument with whatever ill-informed editor wrote the original text: I don't even have a third-party reference to support an edit war.  Just talk point that the article if factually incorrect in this area.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.212.199 (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "deleted material may simply disappear from view."