User talk:Dashtheman

Please do not add commercial material to Wikipedia, as you did to Think gum. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Think Gum Display Box.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Sample box for Website.jpg. The copy called Image:Sample box for Website.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating Deleted articles.

Recreating deleted articles is frowned upon. The proper way to go about it would be to list the article at Wikipedia:Deletion review. However you should make sure that the article passes Wikipedia:Notability and it should be written in a neutral point of view. Taemyr (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Think Gum

Since I feel that Think Gum does not pass wikipedia's demands for notability, see Wikipedia:Notability, I have proposed it for deletion. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think Gum. Taemyr (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taken me a few days to get back to you, but I've been offline. I gave some reasons for supporting the deletion of Think Gum at the AFD page. Basically, I don't think the article as currently written says why Think Gum is notable. There does not seem to be any independent, third party coverage of the product. Previous incarnations of the article seem to be trying to get people to buy it, and thus and ad. Hopefully the AFD will get a wider consensus on Think Gum. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]