Talk:Typepad

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

Internet Mid‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Blocking in South Korea[edit]

This site claims that Typepad-hosted blogs are blocked in China and South Korea. China doesn't surprise me, but is it true that they're blocked in South Korea, and if so, why?

Due to identity theft and credit card scamming! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.92.76 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

understanding problem..[edit]

"..., generally considered the largest paid blogging service" - does this refer to TypePad or SixApart ? -- Best Regards, de:Benutzer:ThePeritus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.185.57.9 (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reads like an advertisement[edit]

Article reads like an advertisement and is too short. If it is the "largest paid blogging service in the world" shouldn't the article be longer?12.186.114.112 (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does 'available for the iphone' mean[edit]

Surely it doesn't mean that it will be possible to install typepad on the iphone - this probably means that the existing product will become 'iphone-friendly'. Reads like an advertisement for typepad and iphone, and is out of date anyway - "will be available for the iPhone in early July" refers to last july - did it become available? mmj (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it. If anyone knows whether this actually went ahead as planned (a year ago, now) and what it really meant, add more information. mmj (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Is Typepad.com considered a reliable source for citations for a company? If it is the only source for the company, does that prove notability? This is in reference to E-Finance_&_Payments_Law_&_Policy article. I marked for deletion before reference was added. I don't think it still qualifies for A7 anymore, but it might still qualify for deletion under WP:COMPANY. I just need some clarification.TParis00ap (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. See WP:Blogs as sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are reliable, but do not contribute towards the notability of the article as they are not independant.--Otterathome (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking[edit]

Don't the constant references to typepad.com on thousands of different web sites amount to yet another backhanded 3rd party cookie / web beacon? Is this their where they make their money? Why shouldn't I block typepad.com in my firewall? Bostoner (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]