Talk:Litl OS
That speedy deletion tag was itself added very speedily! Please provide more details specific to why this article triggered the {{db-spam}} tag. Thanks. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because you had advertising spam in one of the refs. I removed that and the speedy tag, please don't insert the spam. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Can you provide more details about the specific info in the ref that was considered spam? I'd like to avoid causing these issues in the future. Thanks. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- The entire thing is spammy: it's not necessary to the ref and the whole thing is just ad copy plus contact info for obtaining the source code. I would say that easily 40% of new articles are spam, some are blatant and some hide it. At times of heavy throughput, up to 90% of new articles are either spam, nonsense or pure vandalism and are tagged speedy so please don't take it personally. I removed what I preceived to be spammy and also removed the db tag. The article otherwise seems fine. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detail; that answers my question so the problem can be avoided in the future. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- The entire thing is spammy: it's not necessary to the ref and the whole thing is just ad copy plus contact info for obtaining the source code. I would say that easily 40% of new articles are spam, some are blatant and some hide it. At times of heavy throughput, up to 90% of new articles are either spam, nonsense or pure vandalism and are tagged speedy so please don't take it personally. I removed what I preceived to be spammy and also removed the db tag. The article otherwise seems fine. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Can you provide more details about the specific info in the ref that was considered spam? I'd like to avoid causing these issues in the future. Thanks. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I see there have been substantial edits to the article since the above comments were made in Nov 2009 and it now provides more background and references, yet the article still carries a spam notice. Is this intentional? Are more changes needed? I note the Google Chrome OS article by way of comparison does not carry a spam notice. Opinions please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.131.102.6 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Reading it again I see some independent references seem to have actually been removed. I think it could have more references from the better known product review literature, and some critique as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.131.102.6 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, please provide specific details about why this article was tagged with {{Advert}}. It's hard to address concerns raised via a generic template; however, specific concerns are much more readily addressed. Thanks. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)