Talk:PocketBook International

Important Notes Before Editing This Article

Please review the following before editing:

1. Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable.
2. Please add text that has a neutral point of view instead of sounding like an advertisement.
3. Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, ISBN 9780596515164.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Need Photos

This article still needs photos for these models: 602, 701, 902. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't own any of their readers, so I can't take a photo. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What CPU in New Models?

What cpu part number and/or cpu core is contained in the new readers? My guess is the 602, 603, 902, 903 all have the save CPU; but likely the 701 has a different part since it is faster. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

After digging around the Samsung ARM web site earlier tonight, I've been wondering if the 60x and 90x products are using an ARM9, but I can't prove it. Heck I can't prove jack anyway since I don't own any of the PocketBook readers. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What Android ships with 701?

Does the 701 ship with Android 2.0 or 2.0.1? Their web site lists 2.0 but I wondered if it could be a mistake. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
What are the plans to upgrade to Android 2.2 or 2.3 or ...? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, IQ701 ships with Android 2.0 and they "promise" soon update to 2.2. --Brainsteinko (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What Video File Formats does 701 support?

What video file resolutions does the 701 support? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Shortcomings of PocketBook Readers

I thought about adding a shortcoming section to the article, but thought the vendor might not like to see it, so I decided to make the statement here for now.

Future Hardware Wish List:

1. All products must have:
   1. microUSB or miniUSB for power charger / data transfer.
   2. 3.5mm audio for headphone jack / speakers. Don't use 2.5mm!
   3. microSDHC or SDHC flash memory slot.
2. Possibly change to MicroUSB connector?
   1. Europe is standardizing on MicroUSB connector for chargers.
   2. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/29/standard_charger
   3. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/301
3. Add PDMI docking connector on Android-based products. Not mandatory, but desired.
4. Add SDXC or microSDXC support. Not mandatory, but a desired feature as SDXC market grows.
5. Possibly add bluetooth transmit with A2DP stereo, so can play songs to bluetooth speakers or car or headset.
6. Desired to have 802.11bgn so can surf the web.

Web Site Wish List:

1. List the firmware release date on the download web page for each product.
2. Make the international website look better. The USA website looks nice.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC) • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

″All products must have microUSB or miniUSB for power charger ..." in general I'd agree, but the only sane charging option for an IP X7 certified device like the PB Aqua is a wireless one. Likewise for the data transfer.

BerlinSight (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Just wrote to PB in Kyiv on the questions raised here. I expect some feedback. --Brainsteinko (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Please use only reliable third-party references. Thanks --Brainsteinko (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tags

So I put an {{advert}} tag on the article yesterday. After looking at it again, I think if the issues, particularly the notability are addressed then its not really a concern otherwise the article does appear to be just an advertisement. For the sources, not all are unreliable, but you have some forum and blog posts which raise red flags. As for layout, well the big thing is section headers.陣内_Jinnai 16:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed the links. and what about headers ? :) --Brainsteinko (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

section headers shouldn't have any kind of links in them. In addition, the external links should all the in an External link section also. Also I'm not really sure about some of those sources as being reliable.陣内_Jinnai 00:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

what specific links are not okay? "Good E-reader" is not an average blog and this kind of blogs are permitted as reliable--Brainsteinko (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If the blog has had its posts published by other multiple reliable sources then that's fine or if the writer is a contributor to more established RSes on technology its also fine.陣内_Jinnai 15:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed the references, are you satisfied with that ?--Brainsteinko (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

References seem fine as cursory glance. I can't say if #2 and #5 are a RSes, but I'll take your word on it.陣内_Jinnai 15:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

All "missing" External links are in fact in/from one "PocketBook International" link, links from headers removed --Brainsteinko (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the subsection links are still external links. There cannot be any kind of linking in section headers.陣内_Jinnai 16:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the tag. The article is mostly just a list of models. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, Sir. So what do you think there should be in an article about manufacturing firm ? Your proposals ? You can't just delete an article about international company with sales reaching 200 mln dollars or leave that 'nice' tag without explanations.--Brainsteinko (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't about a manufacturing firm. I think it would be a good proposal to change this article so it is about the manufacturing firm.

No one is proposing deletion that I'm aware.

I think my explanation for the tag suffices. If not, then someone should address the explanation directly. --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean address directly ? Directly to you ? This article is about readers, as you can clearly see from its name. And surely mentions their producer. So what are you threatening me if I delete this tag ? We keep deleting each other or what ? The tag says nice and clear - to write neutrally. The article is neutral as can be

--Brainsteinko (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"The article is mostly just a list of models." Correct?

Write neutrally means follow WP:NPOV.

No one is threatening anything here. Please focus on content. Let's try to stay calm and cool.

What do you think of the idea of changing the article so it is directly about the company, rather than the product line? --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ronz. I would be very grateful to you if you write an article about PocketBook company, but there has been a work done about PocketBook e-readers. Any other proposals ? They will be mused since you are the second person adding this tag. You took your time to do this, please take your time to finish this matter. Why don't you look at Sony Reader, Amazon Kindle, Hanlin eReader, they all list specifications for their products. I wasn't the one to add them in this article but what is that annoys you ? This tag is absolutely unacceptable. I hope you mean business, not vandalism. Again, what is wrong about the "list of models"? Please take a look at Kobo eReader you may delete at these sites as much as you want. Hint: Kobo has a lot of external links which are official sites.--Brainsteinko (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring done?

I've removed the tag. Judging by the discussion above and the subsequent edits, I think it's resolved. Anything I'm missing? --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The tag....., I've written to your talk page, but you can answer here. Your arguments that the tag you did not remove should be there--Brainsteinko (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

External links

This article is about the product line, correct? If so, then even one corporate site might be allowed, though it's a stretch of ELOFFICIAL. --Ronz (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually its not a stretech and in general is considered expected. Multiple such sites are allowed under certain circumstances. In this case it would be if one site didn't list all the models because of the way they are marketing things.陣内_Jinnai 21:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So this article about the product line. I'll assume so...

Take a look at WP:ELOFFICIAL. An official site would be about the PocketBook Reader itself.

The article needs rethinking. I think it's a waste of time discussing this until the bigger problem is addressed. If anyone feels that this needs resolving quickly, take it to WP:ELN. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

bookland.net is simply not about the topic of this article, so is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders why I cite mobilread.com for some information, it is their official support forum - see the button on the right side on either the current site or waybackmachine in case its changed. http://pocketbook.de/support/ Forkosigan and mtravellerh are employees of Pocketbook Germany BottomDog (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the bookland.net link keeps being readded. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Notable Issue?

I would like to know why there is a "notable" banner on this article? This company has been around for a while, plus they are shipping many models. Not every company has a fruit-icon that throngs of people mindlessly buy. I might accept your argument if they were a new company with only one generic product, but they aren't. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a couple of reviews here, but its probably that those reviews probably don't meet the standard type of reliable source for a history of editorial oversight.陣内_Jinnai 00:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be fair and unbiased. As an experienced user you may know that many (if not all !) tech products on Wiki include review links. Don't go far, please check the devices I mentioned above. I hope we reach some agreement.--Brainsteinko (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Review links, yes; review links to reliable sources? That not so much.陣内_Jinnai 02:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. "Not so much" does not count. I.e. they do have the right for existence. I assume that you cannot provide citation from Wiki rules proving that the listed review sources are not reliable. I'm just lost. NY Times does not review such gadgets. Please provide review sources that are reliable in your opinion and more reliable than the ones listed here. Just what are yours and Ronz reasons for leaving the tags ? Does not look like good faith at all. I will be bringing the issue to edit warring noticeboard on Thursday if we persist in futile discussion. --Brainsteinko (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the banner, "The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed.":

1. Please tell me which document and EXACT section applies to notability of this type of article.
2. Why is this article any less notable then products linked in this article Comparison of e-book readers?
3. Yes this article needs cleanup, but other than cleanup issues, why should this article be deleted?

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sbmeirow asked me for input here. Unfortunately, handheld electronics are far from my specialities (US geography and US historic sites), so I can offer only two things to help you:

1. The only relevant notability guideline with which I'm familiar is WP:GNG.
2. The article shouldn't be deleted simply because it needs cleanup, since AFD isn't cleanup: surely it's not in such a hopeless state that it can't be fixed.

Sorry that I can't be more helpful. You might want to go to the Help Desk for pointers to more specific notability guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The general criteria for notability is to have independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic. After reading the past discussions and quickly skimming the references, my concern was that though it appeared we may have met the notability criteria, it was not clear, and I wasn't certain that the reason for its notability was properly presented in the article. There have been a large number of changes to the article since, so where do we stand? --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Examining the references

Let's look at the sources one by one: --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• telegraph.co.uk

  This is a reprint from Rossiyskaya Gazeta, where The Telegraph takes no responsibility for the content. Such a disclaimer may mean that the reliability of the original publication is in question. For our purposes, it makes the independence and reliability questionable.

  The article barely mentions eReader until its second half, but has significant coverage through the rest of the article.

  According to this article, eReader is notable for being in the Russian market, for not being cheap, and for tapping into the market for viewing pirated files. There are also sales numbers and earnings estimates in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  This does not mean Rossiyskaya Gazeta is not a reliable source. PocketBook is NOT pirating and always supported legality. You may say as well that Google is tapping into the market for viewing pirated files.--Brainsteinko (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  I agree that the disclaimer itself doesn't mean that it's not a reliable source. Looking closer, it's Rossiyskaya Gazeta, correct? If so, it should be fine.

  The source specifically highlights the use for viewing pirated files. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  I would like to reiterate the point that the telegraph link does appear to be paid placement. Note the SPONSORED in the url and go to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/ which does say "Telegraph Sponsored Content | Sponsored microsites focusing on travel, business, culture, sport, and lifestyle" BottomDog (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• lesen.net

  This appears to be a German-language blog/community specific to electronic books. Is this a reliable source? --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  No it's not a blog, for your information blog is the same in German.--Brainsteinko (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  I wrote, "appears" because I wasn't sure. What is it? I don't understand what distinction you're trying to make. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  I mean that the word blog in German is also Blog. So its not a blog as you can see--Brainsteinko (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  I don't believe it's a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

  It's not a reliable source. Its a personal site that tries to make profit (apparent by the guy naming a tax-id in the imprint) German law dictates to present the company form in the imprint and since he does not name a gmbh (limited) or something similiar one can assume he is doing this on a "freelance" basis / one man show - so I would call this a blog BottomDog (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• goodereader.com

  A detailed review from the blog section of the Good e-Reader site. Looks like it would be considered reliable. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• slashgear.com

  This appears to be a quick summary of a review from something written at mobileread.com that I cannot find. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  So why are you making pointless assumptions. Reliable source

  Take it to WP:RSN, and be WP:CIVIL when doing so. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  Mobiread is user submitted content for reviews, so its not reliable.陣内_Jinnai 21:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, don't get your point. The information is not taken from Mobileread, I don't know what were their reasoning for saying "via Mobileread" at the end but what appears in the result is the article, published by journalist Chris Davis in a reliable independent source.--Brainsteinko (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• ocrworld.com --Brainsteinko (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  This is a press release. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  It's not. News, thats what it says. From independent reliable source.--Brainsteinko (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  It's a press release. If you disagree, try WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  It's a press release. That another source decided for their organizational purposes to put it in "news" doesn't matter anymore than if they put it in "random stuff".陣内_Jinnai 21:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You may take it to WP:DR, as Ronz said, or Ronz could do it himself.--Brainsteinko (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• engadget.com

  This is a single-paragraph about a press release about how the product line will be showcased. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  Nothing wrong with that. Upheld press-release from a reliable and established source.--Brainsteinko (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  If used per WP:SELFPUB, it's fine. However, I don't believe it helps with the issue of notability. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• best-ereaders.com

  This is a short review. Is this a reliable source? --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Strange notion of shortness. Reliable source. --Brainsteinko (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How is it reliable? Their "about us" page doesn't give any indication of editorial oversight.陣内_Jinnai 21:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Should it give? Can you give the examples of "about us" where it mentions "editorial oversight"? Further, if they don't say about it, doesn't mean that they don't have editorial oversight. Can you give me the rule from Wiki which is violated? It's not a blog, a blog in common sense is something published on livejournal or blogger - third party feed on external domain base.--Brainsteinko (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• codon.org.uk

  Doesn't look like a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If this is not a news outlet does not mean it's not reliable source. Could be removed though.--Brainsteinko (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• thetechjournal.com

  A short review. I believe this is a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary of refs

I think we have enough sources to establish notability with three of the references: telegraph.co.uk/Rossiyskaya Gazeta, goodereader.com, and thetechjournal.com. There are still very questionable sources in the article. I think they should be tagged with {{Rs}}, but I think it could wait while we give others time to respond. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting till this Thursday--Brainsteinko (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So the lesen.net, slashgear.com, and best-ereaders.com references are disputed as being of questionable reliability. Please don't remove the tags that I've added to each identifying the dispute.

Are we ready to take them to WP:RSN? --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving along ?

Added new ref. Can we reduce the objections?--Brainsteinko (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please give other editors time to respond. We're in no rush here. --Ronz (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Refs for specs?

There should be some references on the specifications for each model. Their own press would suffice, and simple technical specifications without a promotional material would be preferable. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You removed the references to their own press, didn't you--Brainsteinko (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer a link just to the specifications, to English specifications if possible. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If a better source is wanted, it may be preferable to tag the existing one with {{Refimprove-inline}} than to delete an apparently policy-compliant citation simply because one wishes for a different one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The removed refs didn't actually give the specs. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, the ref pointed to each product page, which if you clicked on a tab would take you to the specifications. There are 2 things that we could point to: each specification web page and each PDF manual. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

References should verify the information directly. --Ronz (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule that says that the linked URL must instantly display the content, without clicking on anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Bo there isn't because such a rule would have issue with some websites that employ complex java, flash or other type scripts. However, its quite clear this site is not one of them.陣内_Jinnai 23:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Whenever possible, references should verify the information directly. Exceptions should usually indicate how to access the information. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please use Wiki quotations of rules, not yours. This is something I ask you, Ronz, for more than a week.E.g. "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it." so please don't threaten me blocking. Specifically about this matter, there is no need to flood the reference list (there is a rule I've read I can't find now) Specs are not "challenged or likely to be challenged", are they? While on the other hand, there is a site (PocketBook USA) given where users can easily find specs. Regards, --Brainsteinko (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What was in place before your deletions were compact blue-colored inline links on each model instead of placing self-published refs in the ref list which belong to compact 2-3 links in External links section that you deleted. --Brainsteinko (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Tags-2

So you inserted three tags. What are your arguments for each of them ?

1. Verifiability "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source..." What are your arguments that the material is likely to be challenged ?
2. Neutral point of view. You can't insert a tag without arguments. The reason I'm deleting your tags is that you don't present wiki-based arguments, and don't refute mine; and I will delete it soon if you don't.
3. reliable source. I'm waiting for your wiki-based arguments. Here is mine: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria." Mainstream is probably the main rule for reliable sources in Wiki, what are your arguments the sources are not mainstream or respected ? --Brainsteinko (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

About this:

So the lesen.net, slashgear.com, and best-ereaders.com references are disputed as being of questionable reliability. Please don't remove the tags that I've added to each identifying the dispute. Are we ready to take them to WP:RSN? --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do and inform me of doing so as per guidelines--Brainsteinko (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Tag-3

It's been more than a month since the tag about allegedly unreliable sources in the article. No one expressed concerns which the tag inquired for and I'm removing it for the following reasons.

User Jinnai expressed concerns about a couple of press-releases published by third-parties, so they are not exactly self-published and, furthermore, comply with WP:SELFPUB.

User Ronz expressed concerns about reliability of lesen.net site. I'm ready to discuss it at respective noticeboard.

And the main reason is that the tag disrupts readers from reading the article based obviously on reliable and for the most part established third-party sources, marring them all as "unreliable".

Open-minded replies are welcome.--Brainsteinko (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

COI and reference concerns

Since Brainsteinko keeps removing and weakening all negative aspects and adding overly broad and positive marketing drivel on the Pocketbook page I did a little digging on Brainsteinko and aparently about all of his contributions are related to Pocketbook. He makes sure Pocketbook is mentioned everywhere and always overly positive.

He works as a Freelancer writer and translator in Kiev - surprise that is where the headquarters and software development of Pocketbook is located.

This article is far from being unbiased and in my opinion is paid advertisement in one form or another.

Also the article references an Telegraph article for the number of employees and revenue numbers. First and foremost the article nowhere mentions those numbers but still has been added as reference, second the article URL plainly states SPONSORED.

I highly doubt PB has more than 30-40 employees worldwide. People in germany constantly complain that they try to send RMA products there only with their parcel return because nobody could be found and people calling the german headquarter with nobody answering.

Since germany seems to be the biggest market for PB at the moment after the soviet block its quite unlikely they sport 150 employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.233.122.72 (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI accusations are meaningless without evidence. Do you have any? --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Only indirect proof as its the only article he works on, he reverted multiple of my edits in one go because he did not like parts of it because they added negative aspects or removed numbers he pulled out of thin air. BottomDog (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does he keep adding invalid claims - even with citations (because otherwise it would be outright rejected) even tho the citations dont back up his claims. Why does he write text that sounds like advertisement and makes sure negative aspects or true comparisons to competitor products are left out. BottomDog (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ronz for showing good faith, though I don't expect that you become proponent of PB. The only reason I write primarily about PB is the sad fact that on Wikipedia its the only company producing something from Kyiv and one of a handful from the whole 45 mln people Ukraine (surprise surprise). There is a small article about engine producer Motor Sich from another city and maybe a few small software developing firms. And I've searched hard.

About Telegraph article. This February 2011 article states estimated numbers of sales in 2010. Here's the quote - "with earnings estimated at around £94m". There is some mistake about 150 people in PB. There is a number of Russian sources about this figure going on for quite a while. Its not a needle you can hide from public if ever anything can be concealed from public. Here is translation of official PB site/About us. For quick search enter "150".--Brainsteinko (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts to help a local company but the article does still have to be neutral. Please do not bunch-revert just because you think what I added is not positive enough. BottomDog (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Also as by your own words, PocketBook isn't even producing in Kiev. And because most of their software shows compile signatures by others than PocketBook I highly doubt there is much development going on there either. If you can, would you take some pictures of their headquarter in Kiev?

The kernel says "<5>Linux version 2.6.29.6 X3 version 0000 (root@sky-desktop) (gcc version 4.3.1 (for S3C64XX Samsung Electronics AP Development Team) ) #35 PREEMPT Tue Feb 15 09:12:31 HKT 2011" BottomDog (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What exactly gives you the right to revert all changes others and I did and then tell us to defend our changes? This is wikipedia and not your personal playground. BottomDog (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, lets start talking. I presented my arguments on View History page and on edit warring page. Please answer to them. We can discuss any other change one by one. Don't use mass editing so its hard to talk about every single change.--Brainsteinko (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a great suggestion, please start with one suggestion on something you want changed. Discuss that change and come to a consensus and then implement it. Then move on to the next thing. Once the two of you start working together instead of against each other, you can probably start moving with bigger edits. GB fan (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

PocketBook germany site says 7000 "7 000" page turns. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://pocketbook.de/products/pocketbook-902/&ei=3KTyTaClOM_usgaPmpDVBg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://pocketbook.de/products/pocketbook-902/%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Divns BottomDog (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the original version was "up to 14000". This is the number for 602 model, e.g. We can write "7000 to 14000".--Brainsteinko (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Added controversies

Can we create a section where we discuss the drawbacks of Pocketbook? Contrary to the Kindle and Sony readers Pocketbook is using an older gen e-ink display that is slower than newer Pearl displays, has a worse contrast and is harder to read in the sunlight.

Also since one of the main selling points of Pocketbook is their "openess" I think it should be mentioned that so far this openness is a farce. SDKs have been promised for the Hardware release, then for March then for May and then begining of June we got some incoherent undocumented blob of binaries without compliance to the GPL License. Pocketbook is using GPL software without adhering to the License and not providing source code when they must according to the GPL license.

Many people including me bought a Pocketbook because of the promise of handwriting and openness which both have so far not been made good.

If you describe the pocketbook with such fanfare and detail it must be correct and neutral and must also shed light on the negative aspects of the product and not just what Pocketbook is telling in the marketing department.

Currently the Pen, 3G and WIFI is quasi useless. The backslide design is broken and every time you try and open the pocketbook (Sim, battery) you run into the risk of breaking the screen because of the force required to open it. I had to wait 2 Months after the supposed release date and after I have had paid my pocketbook to finally receive it. Information has been spare, contacting pocketbook has failed most of the time.

Every software update reintroduce more bugs than it fixes and at least in germany the RMA department and support are quasi non existant. Pocketbook germany links to a third party forum as their official support forum and the two people from Pocketbook keep telling users that they dont get paid to answer on the forum.

Also Pocketbook has silently switched most of the supplied dictionaries from real ones to demo versions in one of the recent firmwares without telling anyone why.

Promised 3G Wikipedia and Bookland support still broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BottomDog (talk • contribs) 23:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If we talk about how great pocketbook is, we should incorporate some of that information as well.

BottomDog (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is reliably sourced negative information about the reader it belongs in the article. You should not create a dedicated controversy section. All the information should be incorporated into the article in an appropriate place. GB fan (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose posts on the german part of their supposed support forum don't count?

http://pocketbook-free.sourceforge.net/ has the SDK which is not documented - but everyone can see that for themselves and it is not providing the source code for the GNU GPL Licensed open source parts. BottomDog (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What someone can see for themselves is original research and is not allowed in articles. If the posts on the support forum are from the company themselves they can be used as primary source verification, but we must be careful how they are used. If the posts are from consumers they are not reliable sources and can not be used. GB fan (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a whole story about previous and new e-Ink screens. We can start discussion on it, but in one word, it doesn't deserve to be added. --Brainsteinko (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I do think its worth mentioning that the display tech is inferior to the market leaders tech. Difference between Pearl and Vizplex is big. I only own a Vizplex device (903) but I had to opportunity to compare.BottomDog (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets work this point by point

Done: * The claim about being the fastest is overly broad, the citation there is specifically for the 360 and not all Pocketbook devices.BottomDog (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right the source is specifically talking about the 360. I moved that part down to the appropriate section and then rewrote what is left of the sentence. Also the part about the updates monthly wasn't sourced in either of the 2 sources for the sentence, so I removed it. Also it is more of a marketing gimmick for the company to state that. GB fan (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Working on: * The part about it being open source is misleading. The cited article states its using linux - no word about open source. Open source also means they must supply the source code which they don't.

If they do supply the source code for the system please post a link. The sourceforge project pocketbook free does not contain the sources for the main system. In fact it does not even comply with the GPL open source license as it should. The citation for "android device" does mention all readers but again, this article does not seem to be based on facts so I ask to remove its status as good source. The picture shown is not any of the known pocketbook devices either.

I question the authority of the http://thetechjournal.com/electronics/tablet/pocketbook-e-reader-with-android.xhtml article. The article was written before the release and is based on hearsay.

And I can tell by logging into the device (903) and looking at the kernel specs that its not an android device. No mention of that on the official Pocketbook site for the 602/603/902/903 either.

http://pocketbook-usa.com/products/pocketbook-902/ for example

The kernel is the kernel coming with the processor SDK developed by Samsung.

From studying the pocketbook-usa.com and pocketbook.de sites it does appear only the Pocketbook IQ does run android.

GB fan, Ronz and Brainsteinko (and of course everyone else :) please comment. BottomDog (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding to that

* By these standards we should remove the bit about where and by whom its being produced and that the headquarter is doing software dev and design. No source for that information.

I can't imagine what is questioned here. I have piece of news from official site (Russian version) with photos that the current producer is Foxconn. Is this that you question ? I have Russian article saying that Kyiv does development including the kernel in contrast to other rebrands. I remember words about design but understand that it should be quite superficial. --Brainsteinko (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

[x] The claim about being the fastest is overly broad, the citation there is specifically for the 360 and not all Pocketbook devices.

Can present to you piece of news from Russian version where competitors were tested and PB found faster. I heard one from official twitter that latest software of 602 is faster than Kindle3.--Brainsteinko (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

->:::: * The part about it being open source is misleading. The cited article states its using linux - no word about open source. Open source also means they must supply the source code which they don't.

I just reposted info from Internet--Brainsteinko (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

[x] The part about software being updated every month is not backed up by the citation and the citation again is specifically for the 360 device.

Software was updated for different models March, April and June. We deleted it as I didn't want to fight.--Brainsteinko (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

* The citation for the file formats is for the 902 specifically and I don't know how to read long standing leader from that

It is so indeed. As far as I know 301 model had the same formats back in 2009. Only docx was added in 2010. As you can finely see, dear BottomDog, text files supported are the same for all models.--Brainsteinko (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

* About the languages the Abby site claims 25 languages but see http://www.mobileread.mobi/forums/showthread.php?t=80381&page=20 about how people complain that those are suddenly demo versions now.

It IS a glitch in the software. I regret it but as far as I know the majority of devices don't have that bug.--Brainsteinko (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

* Missing cite about the amount of supported languages.

This info is on mobileread and pocketbookreader.com. Official info: PB support all TrueType fonts.--Brainsteinko (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

* The battery lasts without being recharged for up to 14 thousands of page turnings <--- this is not true for all devices, some have 7000 some have 14000

* As the device does not consume energy when displaying an already opened page, the energy consumption is usually calculated by the number of page turnings. <- this statement is false. The screen does not consume power when not changing the display but the PocketBook itself (the device) will continue to use power until it goes into standby. Going into standby causes the device to clear the screen and powering up again and reloading the last book will take 30-60 seconds.

I didn't write that we could do with what you wrote - "consumes only little energy" please change if you will.--Brainsteinko (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Some info on the technical list for each device is outdated or wrong, but others have pointed out this list does not really belong into wikipedia.

Please go ahead and update it. Detailed specs are in all similar devices as far as I remember (see such devices in the bottom table).--Brainsteinko (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

http://goodereader.com/blog/electronic-readers/hands-on-review-of-the-pocketbook-pro-902-9-7-inch-e-reader/ also says 7000 page turns. But the page turn number is highly misleading as it has no real life meaning. You wont be sitting there and turning page after page without reading anything. In my experience its good for around 500-1000 page turns max. The device uses power when ready for a pageturn - and in this state will last a day or two at max. BottomDog (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Reading through the above, it is hard to read because there is so much there. I reiterate, pick something and discuss that rather than a long list of multiple items. Then once that discussion is completed move on to the next item. Nothing in this article is so bad it needs immediate attention. Please don't remove information at this point just because it is not currently sourced in the article. If you challenge the validity of the information and there is no source, add a {{fact}} tag to it. Forums are not valid sources and anything they say can not be used in the article. GB fan (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

@Brainsteinko would you please help me work thru the further points. Also why did you remove the information about the production facilities? BottomDog (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about long waiting. I check only the main page quite often. Also writing at the bottom would be more helpful. But I'll come back on the points of this section. I'm not sure that production is in Taiwan, if you have such info, we could restore that.--Brainsteinko (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Further changes

To GB Fan: Please provide Wiki guidelines where future plans are forbidden. We can arrange something agreeable like change the header of this section or move it to some distant place. It's overall useful information backed by reliable sources. Please don't mass delete. What specific info is not compliant, we can remove it or change. User Ronz complaint earlier that the article is just a list of models. Something has to be added to it, why not information backed by reliable sources. Please reconsider your deletion. Brainsteinko (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ronz gave you the guidelines that apply, also it is just based on information the company gives to try to sell their product. Advertising in articles is not appropriate. GB fan (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Round-up

Lesen.net is a news outlet with editorial board. No Wikipedia guidelines are violated as well as for Telegraph and Techjournal. About updates. PB does issue updates for different models nearly every month which is easily verifiable e.g. from official site. This is serious distinction from other brands. Every sentence doesn't need to be referenced if it's not questionable. I'm the first person against writing like advertisement but please use common sense--Brainsteinko (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please clear your changes on the discussion page first. You have no more rights than I do to just change the content without talking about it first. Please revert your changes and first discuss them here. Ram size does not make anything twice as fast. Again lesen.net is a blog and the android article get it wrong. Please show official info that all Pocketbook devices run android. BottomDog (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we can work out something now. I could delete the parts you don't like but we can probably come out to something soon and than change. "Twice as much" is the official info (your words) backed by some russian sources which have the right to be added. Are you saying that RAM doesn't affect speed ? In addition, CPU and screen (could be referenced) is much faster. We could say that. I noticed that you are not interested in my new version, suggest yours. I have full right to include this info referenced by Russian or English source (just more routine with ref).

Blog is a personal site. While lesen.net is run by several people. Wikipedia article on it needs revision since commentaries is now a feature of many respectable news outlets. Still maybe you might suggest changes e.g. change the sentence with this ref.

What do you think about changing the whole sentence about open-source to "PB's Bookland.net can be accessed from all models" or smth with the same ref. There were complaints that Bookland is not mentioned in the article, now it can be.--Brainsteinko (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, lesen.net is differentiated as blog by Google. That is an argument and should be incorporated in Wiki guidelines to avoid so much confusion. I will delete it completely. Still waiting for your suggestions to change the sentence accordingly --Brainsteinko (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Searching harder Google is not good in differentiating blogs and news. Still, I deleted already, so be it--Brainsteinko (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to include bookland.net here. There where complaints that its a marketing link and I agree. bookland support at the moment does not work in any way or fashion.

I'm not saying that ram size does not matter (it matters especially when the code is bad and there is not much ram) but having twice as much ram does not change the speed in any way or form when its not used. Also twice as much ram could do anything from 0 to a lot faster so its in no way a standard benchmark for anything at all because it depends on how its used and if its needed.

No device beside the 701 does appear to use android, so we should remove that info. BottomDog (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion OPen. Whether to include Bookland.net in the article.

Bookland.net is no less product of PB than others and no more marketing link than official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainsteinko (talk • contribs) 06:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Pocketbook 360 plus blue.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pocketbook 360 plus blue.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)