User talk:Jhando

License tagging for Image:Quikstix.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Quikstix.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article about the new invention, Quikstix?
(''copied from User talk:DESiegel) I would like to know how the article I wrote had "inappropriate" language as per the guidelines?

It was an encyclopedic article that explained the technical features of a new invention.

In the same way to a much longer article about Coca-cola, or any other product that has been written by a neutral person.

Please explain.

Jason


 * The article Quikstix appeared to me, and to another editor who tagged it for deletion, to constitute blatant advertising for a product or company, not a neutral encyclopedic article. Please note the relevant speedy deletion criterion and our anti-spam policy. The only reference given in the article as it existed was the manufacturer's own website, while there is ample documentation about such products as Coca-cola from independent sources. See our notability guideline, which generally requires that information from WP:reliable sources, independent of the subject of an article, Our verifiability policy is also relevant here. Note also our conflict of interest policy, if you are connected with Quikstix.
 * However, if you can create a new article that cites independent reliable sources to establish the notability of this product, and is not so written as to appear to be advertising or promotional, you are free to do so. DES (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I get the fact that there were no independent sources ie. i only referenced the invention site. Being my first article that was an easy mistake to make. I was under the impression that wikipedia articles were more works in progress and hence I was planning to come back when time permitted and add to the original work. Perhaps there should be a way to not publish such articles that you don't want to be judged in their embryonic state and an opposite light to what they were intended. Food for thought.

Thanks for the feedback. Jason.