User talk:OpethRulz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Speedy deletion of Panicyl 2 Spam 3 Panicyl 4 Deletion

[edit] Speedy deletion of Panicyl

A tag has been placed on Panicyl, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Phgao 17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It had been tagged for speedy deletion because it did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines, and also as spam.

It makes unsourced claims that it can reduce the symptoms of panic attacks, anxiety, and depression.

I'm not sure that it is actually an advertisement, although it's certainly uncritical of the claimed benefits, but the lack of verifiable independent references to establish notability is the main problem :Jimfbleak 18:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Seredyn is not a good model - it's unreferenced and orphaned, and as such is liable to speedy deletion. I tagged it as unsourced, and it may well be deleted. Just recreate the article as before, there is no special procedure, but make sure that you address the issues of references and neutral tone. Jimfbleak 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Panic attack do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Aleta 19:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Panic disorder. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Aleta 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panicyl

I've seen the new version and copy-edited it. I wonder if it's worth integrating the commentaries following each reference into the main text? At present, there is more content in the refs than the article itself. Alternatively, if the refs exist on line, just make them links to the info. Jimfbleak 06:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

The following are the relevant bits Jimfbleak 18:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion log - 17:55, 20 October 2007 User:@pple (talk deleted "Panicyl" ‎ (CSD G12: Blatant Copyright infringement) (Restore)

On deleted talk page - The specific copyright problem at the top of the article refers to Ginseng. All of the other write-ups regarding efficacy of individual constituents seem also to be exact quotes from either other web-sites or from the original articles. If the journals from which these were obtained do not exercise copyright on abstracts, as might be the case, they need to be clearly credited and the lack of copyright noted. If the abstracts are copyright, then appropriate permissions are needed. As an alternate, the information from the abstracts can be presented with appropriate credit, without the use of exact quotations. TBird68 09:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)