User talk:Pmetc

Speedy deletion nomination of Da vinci eastbourne


A tag has been placed on Da vinci eastbourne, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous 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 and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Derfel73 (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Da vinci eastbourne
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Da vinci eastbourne, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Da vinci eastbourne. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the article's . Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Da vinci eastbourne. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did with this edit to Da vinci eastbourne. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 12:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be helpful if Wikipedia added some comment to db-g11 to explain why this suddenly appears on your article. I removed it because I had not put it there and had no idea what it was. Surely you could add an explanatory note with the code then newcomers like myself wont feel despondent at your threats to block and be deleted. Not a very friendly introduction and you must realise how challenging it is to get your head around submitting content - especially when it is for the first time.

--Pmetc (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

PS I am also trying (without success) to change the name of the title page to "da Vinci Hotel & Art Gallery". How do I do this? Do I create another entry ...then delete this one???

--Pmetc (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Da Vinci Hotel & Art Gallery
Hi I've removed a fair bit of what you've put in this article  This was for two reasons;
 * Firstly it read far too much like an advert. Wikipedia entries should be neutral
 * Secondly, most of what you are adding was about Eastbourne, which has its own article. Listing its attractions, in non-neutral terms, makes the article appear to be a hotel brochure. This article should limit itself to details about the hotel, not the "wealth of artists and places to go and see" while staying there.

The article also really need cites to reliable sources to establish the hotel's notability and enable the reader to verify what is being said. This particularly refers to specific claims like "the UK's first art themed hotel". You should also avoid time relative references like "recently" Wikipedia is not a newspaper and the reader has no idea when the article was written or when "recently" may be. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You should also be aware that ignoring other editors and edit warring is not helpful and will only get you blocked. I'm trying to explain to you how to improve the article you're writing.  Ignoring my advice will only mean some other editor will come along presently and removed what you've added, for exactly the same reasons.  You may even end up with the entire article deleted as being advertising for a non-notable establishment.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly not ignoring other editors (even the rude and unhelpful ones I encountered earlier) and the most recent offering moved the content firmly away from the focus on the hotel (to avoid being seen as an advert) to a focus on the art (as a researched offering on art in and around the Eastbourne area).

Paul Metcalf (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the page.

I have wasted 24 hours of my life trying to offer content which is both encyclopedic, comprehensive and interesting covering, in one place, content relating to art in and around Eastbourne.

It seems that in your rush to put down new members and their efforts, that you wish for none of these. Since joining, I have met with nothing but rudeness and contradiction. I will write about these matters elsewhere

Paul Metcalf (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I really sorry you feel this way But as I explained, Wikipedia already has an article on Eastbourne.  Expanding the article on this hotel into a general discussion of "art in Eastbourne" does fulfil the aim of writing a neutral article about the hotel.  If you have ideas on content about Eastbourne's art-scene, then the Eastbourne article is the correct place to put them.
 * Editing Wikipedia can be daunting for the first time, which is why it's not a good idea to dive in, as you did, and try to create a new article straight off without reading any of the help on guidelines and policies. These were all linked for you at the top of this page.  It was also explained to you why your first attempts were nominated for deletion.  Did you read any of this?
 * As it is, the Da Vinci Hotel & Art Gallery is still there and can still be improved upon. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)