Talk:Unity Version Control
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unity Version Control article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Thumperward (talk · contribs) on 13 March 2012 with the comment: Advert with very little claim to notability established through reliable sources It was contested by czarkoff (talk · contribs) on 13 March 2012 with the comment: The "External links" section contains several links to sources generally considered reliable. At least the one to The Register implies notability, didn't check the rest of them. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Tags
Hi, please, could you specify which content should be removed from our wikipedia web page in order to agree with wikipedia legislation?? Becouse, after reviewing many other web page from our direct competitors,i don´t find any difference between at all. Thank you. 213.254.84.80 (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an ad and a poor one at that, Please delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.238.177 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
offensive ads
This product was only brought to my attention by an advertisement by the vendor, which I (as a man, if that's important to you) found offensive and degrading of women. And yet the article has nothing to say about how the product has been advertised? Are we really expected to believe that absolutely no one of any notability has published material related to this advertising? — 184.32.175.25 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
sources...
The DrDobbs link is a press-release rather than a review. The same for EETimes, etc. (reviews should contrast alternatives and pros/cons rather than solely citing nice things to say about a product). It appears that only the screenshots posted by de Icaza are independent commentary - and still not a review, per se. TEDickey (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.