Template talk:Db-g11
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I find it interesting that it fails at all to mention the share(stock) option backdating scandal which appeared to endemic thought-out the organisation. With the General Council , CEO and CFO having to resign over the issue… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.94.197 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that {{hangon}} is going to be all that useful on spam :) But no biggie. >Radiant< 23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Whether in bad faith or because of the tagging person mis-identifying the article, this tag may be used on legitimate articles. —Centrx→talk • 01:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm uncomfortable with the language of "blatant, unsalvageable spam," since it sounds angry and confrontational. Yes, we need to be firm about dealing with people using Wikipedia to self-promote, but we should still WP:AGF, as some new editors may honestly be unaware that what they're doing is against Wikipedia policy, especially because of the recent article in the Wikipedia Signpost [1]. I recommend changing the language to, It is either blatant, unsalvageable spam for a person, group, company or association; or has been deemed to have no other apparent encyclopedic value than to promote some non-notable entity. We need to be able to be tough on these pages, without actively antagonizing some of the good faith people in the corporate world who made an honest mistake. --Elonka 00:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I just ran that off to expand the then-current "Blatant spam" reason. It's a new template and will likely get revised for a while untill stable. 68.39.174.238 23:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
-
spam...remove this article
I like:"It appears to have no encyclopedic value, but is instead simple advertising or promotional material, which is forbidden per the Wikipedia policies against spamThis has to be removed.
Contents |
[edit] New template needed?
The wording of the last clause on this template ("would require a substantial rewrite to become an encyclopedia article") seems dismissive of the fact that CSD G11 is a general criterion and therefore applies across all namespaces. It's certainly a helpful bit to have on the template, but it seems very out of place in instances like user pages tagged for G11 because they consist only of advertising info (which are quite common). Therefore, I'm suggesting a new template with less wording to be used in these non-article G11 situations: I've put it in userspace for now at User:Zeibura/db-spam2 - let me know what you think. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 14:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please restore the modifier "blatent" lots of reasonable articles/pages about prople and product have soem advertising effect, and the wording of this might tempt people to tag such when they aren't really blatent advertising. Also, if this is to be used only on pages not in the main-space, please include a note to tat effect -- People sghouldn't use this on article in preference to teh existing db-spam. DES (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
it is pure Advertisment have to remove it
[edit] Response Insurance
I am contesting that the Response Insurance page not be deleted, because it is not intended as an advertisemnet. The page is written completely nuetral and has no mention of promotional info. The page is strictly for informational purposes...see Geico, Travelers, Unitrin, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawkey3 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] OfficeMax
I am contesting that the OfficeMax page remain on Wikipedia, as all of the information obtained was gathered directly from the website. There is no promotion nor advertising on this page, pnly details and explinations of services and products offered by OfficeMax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wubird (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal to update language
Modified wording for this template is being discussed here. Thank you, Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
