Talk:Flocabulary

message: In the recognition section, the links for the articles referenced lead to the flocabulary site and not the actual articles, so they aren't really sources of merit. Additionally, I believe MySpace links are not allowed under {{WP:MYSPACE]]. I'll help in editing this article to keep it from WP:AFD. Christopher Jost 13:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for helping! However, the one thing that I wouldn't have done is remove the MySpace links. Both are official pages linked from the Flocabulary homepage, and neither is used as a source. Many other band/music articles have links to MySpaces (for example, The Flaming Lips#External links). But still, thanks a lot for helping me improve the article! --Brandt Luke Zorn 00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Please see this policy which specifically states that links to social networking sites are to be avoided. Since you mention you link to them from your own site, they are also redundant. I am trying to address the concerns of the other editors who also thought the article was a bit too spammy and self-promoting from the Articles for Deletion page. If you think the paragraph rearrangement back to stet is right, fine - that's a stylistic issue. The SPAM is editorial, however. I raised the concern, and I'm trying to help fix it. Seriously, I don't have a dog in this fight (although I recognize that you do). Christopher Jost 13:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, okay. Fair enough. I thought that it was justified because other musician articles have MySpace links, but if you really think that it will significantly improve the article, fine. --Brandt Luke Zorn 14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Besides, if all your friends jumped off a bridge ....    Seriously, glad to help. FWIW: I cleaned up the lips page so I'm not picking on you at all.  Christopher Jost 00:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay, I never thought you were picking on me. If I sounded hostile, it was unintended. Seriously, thanks for all the help. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SPAM

message: This article reads like a blog.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.222.37.58 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: VOICE

message: I have tagged this article as having numerous issues that are in need of addressing. Personally, I still feel as though this article is written so much like an advertisement, that it would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. However, since my speedy deletion request was denied, and a previous AfD discussion resulted in a Keep decision, I have decided to forgo a new AfD for now, in the hopes that the article can simply be improved. As I have time, I will try to make some changes myself, and I'd appreciate any input others have on how to improve the article, particularly on how to make it more NPOV. Ithizar (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same thoughts myself, so thanks for tagging this. I'd suggest first removing much of the self-promotion, and then focusing on sourcing the remaining statements. As it is now, it reads like an advertisement. I'll make a few changes and try to get the ball rolling. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality, Style and Other Issues