User talk:Mrscomedyarms

TuneTribe
Thank you for your contributions. I have reverted your additions to the TuneTribe article, as the turned it into an example of "advertisements masquerading as articles" per WP:SPAM. Contributions must be written from a neutral point of view, see WP:NPOV. Mr Stephen 14:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, no more advertising
Please do not use the TuneTribe article for advertising. Mr Stephen 18:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My article on TunbeTribe was deleted for the second time yesterday, due to advertising and including of track prices.

The entry for Emusic gives prices of subscriptions, and that's been up for ages. Prices aside, I feel that my entry is neutrally written, free of value judgements and statements not based on fact, so I'm a bit confused.

I need a bit of further guidance in order to ensure that whatever I upload next is acceptable, someone who can specifically tell me which parts of my entry should be deleted before it will be accepted.

Thanks.


 * I believe you raise a valid point. You should discuss this with Mr Stephen. You can post your comments on his talk page. Lestat deLioncourt  talk 13:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

TuneTribe
Hi. I've had v. limited connectivity today. I've not been ignoring, will get back, hope before 00:00 GMT. Mr Stephen 18:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your message.  You are right, it was the combination of a prominent price list and numerous external links that set the alarm bells ringing.  Phrases like "This can be found through TuneTribe’s search page" sound more like advertising copy than encyclopedic information, and there was not a single hint of criticism in your edit.  I am a bit surprised that the infobox includes a 'price' section, but, as you pointed out, it does, and on those grounds it is reasonable for one to be in the TuneTribe article.  One link to the website, in the "External links" section is enough.  You also added a lot of information that was not backed up by reliable third-party references (in fact there are no references at all in the article); this suggests the information came from the website, which would not usually count as reliable and would be biased towards the websites point of view.  (The truth of what you added is not in question - it is its verifiability.)  Otherwise, consider: after the list of labels, inform us what major labels it does not carry; the first paragraph does not need a heading; and consider adding an infobox, see Template:Infobox Online music service.  Have a read of policy at WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:V.  Regards, Mr Stephen 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can live with that as it stands. Please keep your eyes peeled for usable references.  Regards, Mr Stephen 14:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)