User talk:Jiff78

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Glassesdirect and Specsavers

Thanks for taking the time to update the articles. I'm not sure if you're trying to indicate that they both still appear to be advertisments, or if you are pointing out the fact that Specsavers was not tagged as such. As they are currently written, I would suggest that both articles be placed in Articles for Deletion to allow debate on whether these articles should be kept. In my opinion, the articles don't seem to make any significant assertions of notability, and seem to exist only to direct users to them. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The Wikipedia policies regarding spam/advertisement are here. As with any guideline, there are going to be gaps and ambiguities that are open for interpretation. If you feel that the other articles that you have mentioned go against these (or other) policies, you are welcome to edit these articles to bring them in line, propose their deletion, etc. I would caution you, however, to be careful of the words used if you do decide to edit. For example, I rolled back some of the edits you had made to Specsavers, where you used the phrase "...such as Glasses Direct and Specs4less, who have reduced costs for consumers by up to 80%". Statements like this are pretty clear examples of going against WP:NPOV. I would also caution you to be very careful with proposing the deletion of these other articles. You are well within your rights to do so, but I would ask that you take a look at WP:POINT before considering that option. Hope this helps. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note Sliggy has rewritten the article from scratch in such a way as to meet the criteria set forth in policies. I have changed my vote to keep in response to these edits. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Thanks for thanking me in public, appreciated. You probably know of them already, but it can be useful to have a look at the guidelines and policies, particularly the Big Three: the need for a neutral point of view, verifiable sources and no original research, they underpin and guide things. Cheers, Sliggy 00:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. By the way, as a quick piece of advice - I'd go back and remove the bold typeface where you have emphasised delete. This emphasis is used to clearly summarise a Wikipedian's opinion in an AfD discussion, and you expressed yours in the retain (I presume...!). A harassed or time-pressed administrator might miss that you have inadvertently expressed your summary opinion twice. Cheers, Sliggy 01:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)