Talk:Video email

Video email Talk. Publish this page on your ideas about the development of video email. On this page you can not post information bearing commercial advertising resources!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by KozlovVP (talk • contribs) 08:52, 9 April 2014‎

Ironically, your only edits to Wikipedia have been to promote a particular video email service and to delete a mention of a competitor. --McGeddon (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a competitor to us, since we do not pursue commercial profits), and he wanted to attract a new value from your advertising. I'm sorry that it happened, because I think that people need to involve more communication and not just social networks--KozlovVP — Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to return the deleted partition "Examples of video email services", with all the examples that were there --KozlovVP

Article needs references

If the article isn't fixed by 4-6 months, per wikipedia policy it may be moved to the author's sandbox or tagged for delete. Danger^Mouse (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major Revision

Revamped article to demonstrate notability, add Wikipedia links and references to outside peer-reviewed journals. Described various uses and connection with video hosting services. -BlueCorvina (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Hello Bilby, I am opening a discussion to debate on the supposed spam of the article. Can you please tell me why this sentence is spam:

Another example of a video email provider from the early-to-mid 2000s is EyeMail Inc., founded in Atlanta, Georgia in 2004 and still operating.

And yet you don't have any problem with this sentence?

Some examples of recent businesses that also offer video email services include Playable (founded in 2017), Dubb, and Binary Kitchen, which only allows sending webcam videos recorded within its website.

There is no reason to claim that the EyeMail sentence is spam, especially when other companies are referenced with primary sources. I understand that my editing of the article was a paid contribution. However, the promotional content of it is NULL, and I have improved an article that had a lot of issues for years. The only function of improving the article was to increase the quality of information available about the subject. When discussing the history of video email, it seems logical and pertinent to describe the first providers dedicated to it. If I were promoting EyeMail, why would I bother to talk about Goodmail Systems? Because it is part of the history of video email and is mentioned in verifiable sources.

Preventing that I would probably be accused of spamming, I included several other companies to give the article a more neutral tone, and in practically all I had to turn to primary sources. However, you don't seem to have a problem with me mentioning those companies. In fact, in the EyeMail sentence I used two of the best sources in the entire article: one from Forbes and one from the Atlanta Business Chronicle, both of which you have decided to remove completely. I cannot understand how a sentence that simply mentions the company in the same way as the others is not allowed, especially when it has much better sources. I suspect there is another interest behind. For that matter, the article was MUCH more promotional before my edits.

Looking forward to your answer Best wishes! --🩸 𝗕𝗹𝗲𝗳𝗳 🩸 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]