User talk:Simon2239

A tag has been placed on Freebiejeebies, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Freebiejeebies 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 help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Freebiejeebies

A tag has been placed on Freebiejeebies, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. skew-t (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Coca cola christmas advert

I have nominated Coca cola christmas advert, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coca cola christmas advert. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Flewis^(talk) 10:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this may be of use to you

I can see why you feel strongly about the articles that were nominated for deletion. I appreciate that you may consider the treatment of the articles to be somewhat harsh. I can also see that you may feel personally harshly treated. May I ask that you set that aside, please?

I have recently posted something that I hope may also help you on another user's talk page. Rather than edit it to refer to your articles, may I ask you to read it quietly in their talk page. It is here.

Wikipedia is not a gentle place. It is unlikely ever to be a gentle place, but one can work within the rules and make it a fun place, and a useful place.

You and I got off on the wrong foot. For my part I am sorry for any offence I caused you. I hope very much that you remain here and enjoy it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With this (above) in mind, why not take the content from User:Oscarthecat/Freebiejeebies and paste it into User:Simon2239/Freebiejeebies and work on it to make it the best you can achieve in the pseudo-privacy of your user space. When you've got it to a point where you think it is pretty much "camera ready" ask a selection of editors for their thoughts on the article. If they agree that it is worth putting into the main namespace I have no idea what the process is to "unsalt" an article, but I am sure any admin will be able to tell you how to go about it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My dispute is that the article almost as it is was quite acceptable as an article and did not warrant deletion. Perhaps the tone could be tweaked slightly, but really only a minor edit. I hope the page will be replaced for this to occur. Simon2239 (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review may go your way. One of the strong points of wikipedia is that things get overturned by other editors. If the page is reinstated then that is as acceptable a result for the overall project as the page being deleted. Sometimes it is very hard to stand back far enough to see that. Most experienced editors care passionately about the quality of the articles, and care about little else. Almost all editors have early articles ripped to shreds, deleted, argues over. The trick is not ever to take it personally. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freebiejeebies deletion discussion

Are you able to make the final decision on the deletion review of Freebiejeebies discussion and recreate the deleted page? Pretty much all the comments have gone my way and I'm keen for the deletion to be overturned, are you able to do this for me and recreate the page? Thanks very much Simon2239 (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Only uninvolved users may close a deletion review. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but who is likely to do this then? And how soon? Simon2239 (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz has already done so. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Freebiejeebies

An article that you have been involved in editing, Freebiejeebies, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freebiejeebies (2nd nomination). Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some work in the newly restored article. I am sure you will wish to do the same, probably far better than I have achieved. I fear that the work I have done is insufficient for me to reverse my own recommendation to delete the article. However I am willing to be persuaded by edits to the article that it should survive.

This time around may I suggest most strongly that you devote your efforts to improving the article rather than seeking to persuade folk that it is good when it is probably not keepable at present? Naturally you should also make representations at the AfD, but rhetoric will not save it. The only thing that will save it is work showing that it meets WP:WEB among other things. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing sterling work inside the article to assist your efforts to keep the article live here. Even so I'm truly not sure that it can be saved at the present moment, but at least there is now time for a full consensus to build. May I suggest that you take a copy into your own user space so that you can work on it if, as is likely, the consensus is to delete, and then reissue it when notability is perhaps better referenced? I don't expect you to agree with me that notability is not established yet, I'm simply suggesting a way of preserving your hard work for the future. Please do make sure that, however frustrating you find this (I speak from my own experience), you do not take any of this personally - perhaps the hardest thing to do is to distance yourself form "your baby" here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please don't make any more direct changes to the article, but feel free to make more comments and I'll consider them. There's not much more I can do as you say, I'll just have to see what everyone thinks of my latest version, state my case and see what happens. Simon2239 (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made all the changes I was going to make before you got to it today :) While I disagree with some of the changes you have put back I'm not going to get into an edit war over them. At least there is now to be a consensus, which can go either way, but looks as if it will delete at present. All you can do is to ensure it is categorised well, ensure that any notability is asserted with citations, and then bow to the community's verdict. If this one goes to deletion it would be inappropriate, though perfectly allowable, to go to deletion review. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see you be able to turn the AfD around, but I think you are going to find it hard, probably impossible. From experience, if you even slightly disparage another editor's words there, others flock in to suggest deletion just because of that, so go easy there. It is not a vote, it;s decided on balance of arguments, not on weight of numbers, but many people expressing similar arguments do influence the outcome. The only advice I have for you is to strengthen the references to make them truly reliable, and then, gently and quietly, draw attention to that in the AfD. Do not allow anyone's comments to rile you. Wikipedia is an exercise in politeness even when you feel like throwing things. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Freebiejeebies.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Freebiejeebies.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]