Talk:Lemsip

Parts of this now read like an advert - it seems like someone at the company wrote it. Can we excise this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.63.145 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lemsip logo.jpg

Image:Lemsip logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been marked as possibly biased due to the content appearing to have been written by advertisers for the company. A long list of products and slogans seems unnecessary: "Just swallow or dissolve!" is one of the more stunning examples. In any case, even if this is not considered biased this particular example does not conform to Wikipedia's writing standards. There is an entire subsection dedicated to Lemsip's partner Lovefilm. This I personally find particularly outrageous and a flagrant violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use. This subsection is almost completely irrelevant. Combined with the previous dispute over the use of the Lemsip logo, it would seem that the majority of the article has been written to serve Lemsip's own purpose, giving close to no practical information about the subject itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.220.151.50 (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

"This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. (November 2010)" - This was over 3 years ago and I'm sure back then, the article was biased. But it looks fine to me now. Can I remove this "issue" template? Bilorv (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month; in a couple of days I'll just be bold and remove the template if no-one weighs in. Bilorv (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]