User talk:Ubzy/Voodoo Tiki

Article rationale and creation notes
Hello users and administrator, I've created an article about this brand, and I'm trying to get an answer in hte request for unprotection page. What do you think?

This is the page I've posted in the request page:

Unprotect. Hello. I've searched for this brand and I've found -days ago- that I wasn't able to create it. I want to create an excellent article about this brand.

Notability: This brand is being distributed in 18 states and 4 countries.

I wasn't the cause of any problem with this article. So please unlock it, and I will take care of it. I've worked for hours in order to create a good article, collecting accurate information from many sources, all in order to provide relevant and simple information.

This brand is one of the best tequila in the US -and I'm not trying to sell it, I'm just trying to share my knowledge with people interested in Tequila-. And I can certainly maintain a serious, neutral page about the brand, making my best effort to follow the current Wikipedia standards.

This will be one of my first important articles. Please open it to me and other Tequila connoisseurs.

I don't know what happened in the past, irrelevant -since I wasn't the cause of the locking-, and I would love to expand the Wikipedia with it. There are a lot of Tequila brands on the Wikipedia. You can make a big list, and it is alright, as I want to have information about other relevant brands too.

So, while I don't know even why this page is protected/blocked. An administrator told me that still looks like an advert to him (???) The original article wasn't mine. This is my article:Ubzy

I've created that 'demo' article, so you can actually see the article and approve it (naturally, all suggestions are welcomed!).

Please, this is my best article so far (and I really enjoy creating articles about premium drinks).

See my user page and logs if you have to, before approving it. -That was suggested by an administrator, many days ago-.

Thanks a lot for your time! And I appreciate what are you doing, please understand that I've worked hard for this article. It is a relevant multinational brand. Here it goes one reference:



Ubzy

Thanks again!

17:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything is ok now. The article has been reviewed by an administrator, and Voodoo Tiki has been unprotected.


 * I will keep an eye on this article, and I will do my best to keep it clean. This is my first article -more coming-.


 * I am glad to find so many positive people working here. Thanks!


 * --Ubzy (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

External link to Ian Chadwick's site

 * The first 2 posts in this thread were ported to this talk page from HTML comments in the article.

Why is this here? If it is not used with &lt;ref...&gt; and to provide a source citation for specific facts inline in the article, then it is spam and will be deleted per WP:SPAM and WP:EL. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)›, ca. 14 Feb. 2008


 * Note: This is a well known Tequila site in the Internet, Ian has contributed for the wikipedia and it is currently being cited by other Tequila brand articles. Please help here, what should I post? Thanks --Ubzy (talk), ca. 15 Feb. 2008


 * Doesn't answer the question. The relevance to the article is still a mystery. It does not make sense as an external link, and appears to fail WP:SPAM since it appears to serve no purpose other than to advertise Chadwick's site.  If there is a specific page at his site that provides some encyclopedically relevant information about this particular tequila, it should be used with &lt;ref...&gt; and  to provide a source citation for specific facts inline in the article, and not appear in the Ext. links section. If it is just a review, it is of questionable value to the article, but probably of no harm; in that case, it should again be a link directly to the review, not to the site as a whole, and should be labeled something like "Review of Voodoo Tiki at the IanChadwick.com tequila site" so that the purpose of it is clear and it is not deleted as wikispam, which is what is presently looks like.  PS: Whether or not Chadwick is a Wikipedian is irrelevant. He could be the President of the United States, and that wouldn't affect the analysis here. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)