Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2391884fbdd2a7e

Jump to content

Talk:Veet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re-write or Clean-up

[edit]

Anyone willing to help me re-write or clean this article up? (Also, I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in when I edited the page. The edits by 66.128.245.49 are mine.) DinosaurRAWRZ (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • Also, can I just say that I searched up other hair removal products including Nad's and Sally Hansen, and there were no Wikipedia pages for these products. I feel that the harsh comments like "this is a hoax" were completely unnecessary 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Where were these comments? It's not really clear to me what people were calling a hoax. Surely, they weren't saying that Nad's or Sally Hansen products don't exist, right? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
"I have to assume good faith for this AfD nomination, but this almost seems like a hoax." - Roodog2k (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC) 11coolguy12 (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
On what page? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
The discussion page for the deletion of it. Some people got really mad because I nominated it - but there are a lot more well-known products (like I said, Sally Hansen/Nads) which don't have Wiki pages so that's the only reason why I nominated it for deletion. 11coolguy12 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
If those other products don't got articles about them and they are more well known, it would make much more sense to create those articles than to delete this one. Deleting this one would only make things worse. --TiagoTiago (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

What about "according to established science facts"?

[edit]

Just saying "according to the company" without balancing it with other statements sounds biased; sounds like the article is trying to imply the company is lying without saying it explicitly. The article should include information from independent sources on the effects of the product, if any. --TiagoTiago (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • I disagree that saying "according to the company" implies anything other than "this information is from the company." Yes, independent sources are usually better, but when it comes to claims about the intended effect of products, it's important to attribute the source. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Immac

[edit]

Odd that the name Veet originated in the UK, as fair as I remember it was always called Immac in Britain until recent decades. There's no info about when and where this named was used.Gymnophoria (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Capital 'H' needed on the 'Type' section at the beginning of the article

[edit]

A capital 'H' instead a lower-case 'h' is needed on the word 'hairstyling' on the 'Type' section at the beginning of the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply