User talk:Ficso72

A tag has been placed on Voip.com, 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 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 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  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 help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from 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. Calltech 14:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted your recent article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines for companies. It was also written like an advertisement, with unsourced promotional phrases like What makes voip.com unique on the market is that it is committed to educated the public. Since this was the fourth deletion by different admins, I also protected the article.


 * The rest of the article was just a list of the company's products. A mission statement and a list of products is not a neutral encyclopaedic article. If you wish to recreate, you need to provide independent sources for notability (obviously the company's websites aren't independent) avoid POV phrasing, and add content like comparison with competitor products, including weaknesses as well as strengths. If you recreate here, and let me or one of the other deleting admins know, the protection can be removed to allow recreation.  Jimfbleak . Talk to me . 06:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Voip logo 29x82.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Voip logo 29x82.gif. 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. BetacommandBot 07:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Since voip.com is a protected page, please recreate here so I can check that the problems have been addressed (might be tomorrow now). Jimfbleak 19:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't accusing you of anything, just taking precautions with a page that has had more than it's fair share of problems. I'm afraid your sandboxed version is no better. It still does not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines for companies. It is still written like an advertisement, with unsourced claims about cost and reliability (even an "our"!) and it is still written in a non-encyclopaedic spammy style (lots of "you can...") This is exactly why the article is protected. Jimfbleak 06:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen your message, and there are still some problems - I've got to go to London soon, but I'll respond in detail probably tomorrow. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It still looks like spam. Why is the company name bolded twice. Why is services bolded? The final heading is unencyclopaedic. I've fixed the refs, you don't need http for wikilinks, Jimfbleak (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It would help if there was more non-commercial stuff - how many employees? turnover? more history? - more sources for notability. I would still deleted it as it stands after my edits! Jimfbleak (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen your message, will respond tomorrow Jimfbleak (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to have two versions, this is the one I cleaned up in November, and this is a new one with more refs but all the old faults back. Can you producea single final version? If at some stage you want me to delete one of the sandboxes, let me know. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. The live link above is the cleaned up version from Nov Jimfbleak (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We seem to be going backwards. If you look at the November version, I'd done the formatting - bold title, Florida not FL (not everyone knows US abbreviations), wikilinks, neat references. For reasons best known to yourself you have removed all the formatting and most of the useful content and added two sentences which virtually guarantee speedy deletion. I'd be inclined to start from the November version and just add more refs, but it's up to you. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not format refs 1,2 and 4 like ref 3 - much neater? It's better, although a bit thin. Try it and see Jimfbleak (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks better, I think the weaknesses remaining are
 * 1) Only the About.com has much credibility
 * 2) in order to improve customer service and customer knowledge, Voip.com offers free security. Bolded is just company spam, motives are not encyclopaedic Jimfbleak (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)