Talk:Virtual Woman
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 March 2020. The result of the discussion was soft delete. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editThis entry refutes all the accusations of this software being sexist, which I think the majority would agree that it is. This is NOT NPOV. Written by someone in the company perhaps?
Advertising?
editIt seems like this page is specific to one product. Shouldn't this be more of a discussion of virtual people in general?
Quite frankly, I'm surprised someone hasn't created a true "virtual person" yet, aka Simone. The tech is there... maybe no one thinks it will sell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.228.183 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think making such a product would probably be a lot more complicated than it sounds. As for an article on virtual persons, if you have enough material on them you should start it, I didn't see one on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.79 (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if this is a safe program. While runnung it I've had problems. Does anyone know if it's because of bugs in the program or if the creators are "computerterrorists". (It seems the programmers know ALOT about vista as the program bypasses som "things"(I'm only in my seccond year och computerstudies in collage) Making it difficult to shutdown like a norman program n such stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aru05001 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- It didn't fail any of the virus or spyware testers I ran on it, and its listed as clean on a bunch of safe file testing sites. You need to be very careful about saying a program may have been written by "computerterrorists" and calling it malware (in your edit summary) because you are having problems with Vista. Unsubstantiated accusations like that are against Wikipedia's posting policies. According to the article the program is on its third decade so unless they are the most incredibly well hidden, long range terrorists on the planet, I'd say that your problems are elsewhere. 72.84.238.145 (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- i agree, they are, they did it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.174.34 (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio?
editThe image used says that it is copyrighted in the label. Wouldn't that make it ineligible for use here? Sperril (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The software is copyrighted, not the screen shot, check out the licensing tag. It's a promotional image used under the fair use provision. 71.176.231.129 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll fix it in a bit. Sperril (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- The software is copyrighted, not the screen shot, check out the licensing tag. It's a promotional image used under the fair use provision. 71.176.231.129 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Reads like an advertisement, bad article in general
editThis article is of questionable notability for one, and is written in a completely ridiculous manner for two. Not only does it read like an advertisement, but it's been placed in the "cognitive architectures" category in the article List of artificial intelligence projects. It's obvious to anyone that someone involved with the creation and/or marketing of this software has been active on Wikipedia. I propose deletion or heavy modification.