Talk:Piczo

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 June 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Don't like the last bit - is it from Piczo themselves? If so it should be noted, and if not then you can do that with any html page, not just piczo. Thoughts?

The synopsis you refer to was removed in a previous edit.

Quick Cleanup[edit]

I intended to correct a few typos/spelling errors, but cleaned up the article a bit in the process. The stub template is still there; the article needs more work.

I removed some external links. Removed links were either dead (because they were specific to the session of the user), or because they were individual Piczo user websites. The article will quickly become unmanageable if many individual user websites are added. I recommend either adding external links to reputable lists of Piczo websites, such as http://www.piczopros.piczo.com/, or adding individual sites only when they are notable. A site might be notable having been featured in a reputable media article, for example. Please see [Wikipedia External links policy] for further advice.

Also, several unverified and POV claims like "one of the most popular", "growing fast", and "really good" were removed. Claims in articles need to be verifiable - WP:V:

For example, claims that a user site is 'extremely popular' need to be backed-up, perhaps by linking to an extensive survey (WP:CITE) of page hits and inward-links to show that site is more popular than most others. Articles must also be written from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV (e.g. 'really good' is an individual opinion).

An excellent resource for new Wikipedia editors, covering these points, is: Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset. Whitehorse1 18:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to sign the above Talk page comment (entered 24 May '06), originally. Other contributors later edited the wording of my comment. To ensure an accurate record please just reply (e.g. using a colon), to pre-existing comments. Whitehorse1 18:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of social networking websites on AfD[edit]

List of social networking websites is currently an AfD candidate. You are invited to partake in this discussion. Czj 19:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any kids?[edit]

What if a kid signed up wouldn't that be a bad thing or good? Cause it says that only kids under 18 but it also says 13-15. So there could still be kids in it right? Call of duty 23:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i erased your answer plz put it on again. Call of duty 23:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They talk about that a little on their main site page, like the 'Safety' page linked from the front page Piczo.com site safety notice Whitehorse1 18:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that kids can just SAY they're older, and noone will know. So I wouldn't be suprised if there were. --Cuddly Panda 09:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piczo does try and check for people who sign up under false information, there is just a ton of sites to go through. And The piczo age restriction is 13+ so there isn't an 18 year old cap to havign a website.

Adding own websites to article[edit]

I've been watching this page for the sole reason that people are putting their own self-made Piczo websites on this page. May i remind anyone who reads this that this is an encyclopedia, not a website directory. If you find a valid 'External Link' to put in the page, please, do so, but do not put your own website there. I've already reverted a bunch of these edits. If you wish to ask me more about this feel free to contact me on my talk page. -- CattleGirl 09:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding personal websites is a problem, i have just edited wikipedia and found piczo pros which links to personal websites that contain a lot of spyware and adware material.-- 0555 17:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LutherNet? Uh huh. Sure. Never heard of him. Anyone else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supermal (talk • contribs) .

Nope, I removed it. I checked the page anyway, but it's obvious it's not an official page, and also, official pages wouldn't normally have 'pics', etc, on it. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 09:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I built up on the criticism section...[edit]

If anyone has something to say about it, say it here or on Jorophose's talk page. (I'm not logged in at the moment)

As for what I wrote, in the comments, many of my classmates, (and we're supposed to be "smarter" than the rest) can't even use Dreamweaver.

It's pitiful if they can't use something like Dreamweaver; I'm learning Java and Python, but that's nothing; tons of people have written programs with Commodore BASIC when they were wee lads! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.139.29 (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The criticism on this page is ridiculous. The whole *point* of sites like this is to democratize the web, so that people no longer *have* to learn the underlying technologies, unless they are professional developers. How this could possibly be construed to be bad thing I simply cannot fathom. There is no way that sites like this can undermine the teaching of those technologies to people who actually need them. The whole criticism section should be removed.

actually, i tink it should be changed to say somthing about most users choice to include eyestraining backgounds, flourescent backgrounds, and the like.

Online Site Builder[edit]

Online Site Builder is not an appropriate name for the article, until Piczo ceases to exists or officially changes it's name it should still be listed as Piczo. If and when a page move is done, make sure it is done properly.RaseaC (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last part of it[edit]

"Now, Piczo is confusing to use, and flat-out lies to all its members. Usability is in the negatives, and the site is more centered around female fashion blogging than website building, as it used to be. Hopefully, Stardoll will realize its mistake."

Someone should remove this, it looks like an attack to me. RocketMaster (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piczo Logo 2011.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Piczo Logo 2011.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piczo doesn't work any more[edit]

I've tried signing up for an account on Piczo. It didn't work. The whole site is broken. Just giving you guys a heads up. RocketMaster (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piczo closing down[edit]

Piczo said they were closing down. Should that be mentioned somewhere in the article? RocketMaster (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]