Talk:IMacros

POV

advertising? 67.85.12.219 (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC) dave[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Imacros.png

Image:Imacros.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

As notable as GreaseMonkey or any Microsoft web component

Who posed the notability challenge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs) 00:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable then there should be no problem showing it - add some reliable sources that show non-trivial mention and the issue goes away. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the notability challenge because this article fails to establish its Notability by providing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.Please do not use another article as an excuse to escape notability issue. If those articles are also not notable, they will be challenged as well and perhaps deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

This article, about the proprietary-commercial software iMacros, is linked to and mentioned in MANY other articles on automation and test software, and yet it has no link whatsoever to any other related-topic articles. This more than hints that the only people who ever wrote about it in wikipedia were the company's PR and marketing.

"So what?" you may say, "it's their right too, as long as everything meets the right standards". True, but this situation created a bias (perhaps less noticeable when reading only this one article, or maybe even another on the topic) which encompasses many articles dealing with the same subject matter. For example, where many other test/automation software's articles also link to the article "Comparison of test/automation software" (naturally, alongside the common link to "iMacros", wouldn't you figure) - this one does not.

Just a thought. 109.186.16.208 (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say a lot of vague thing. If your only objection is the lack of one or two wikilinks, then go ahead and add those wikilinks. Otherwise, cut out all these vague objections.

Now, if you want a real objection, I give you one: This article fails to comply with Wikipedia notability guideline. Such articles are usually deleted if nominated for deletion through WP:AFD.

Fleet Command (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]