Talk:Disposable food packaging: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:39, 23 March 2009

Hi. I am really not sure what I am doing wrong. I wrote this article since I couldn't find one on single use foodservice packaging, tried to cite all the facts with links to more information, etc. I tried editing several times to make it less "essay like." I am stumped.

If it has to be deleted, so be it. No big deal. But I really hoped to contribute to Wikipedia, so any tips on what it is I did wrong would be much appreciated. Thanks!

PS- I tried editing it several times and adding more sources. This doesn't seem to help.

PPS- I am also confused by the "spam" deletion. I am not advertising any products or companies. It's an article on paper plates, plastic cups and other single use food packaging. I hope this spam tag is in error. If not, please let me know what makes the article "spammish" so I know what not to do in the future with future articles. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrundle (talk • contribs) 14:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem

Seems like large portions of the article are taken from this document (MS Word format). Radiant chains (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. But that document isn't copyrighted and is free to use and redistribute (it's in a press kit). It just happened to have a lot of information i was looking for (and I cited it). If the issue is I relied on it too heavily and that I need to have more sources, I'll keep looking. Thanks for the info. - Hrundle

I saw Denis the Tiger's comments--thank you for the info. I could delete all the environmental stuff in the article if that's the issue. I just though it added an interesting component. That would eliminate the "coatrack" quality and the concern posted above.

Revision as of 14:32, 23 March 2009 edit Hrundle (talk \| contribs) 34 edits →Copyright problem ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:39, 23 March 2009 edit undo Hrundle (talk \| contribs) 34 edits →Copyright problem Next edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:

	That is true. But that document isn't copyrighted and is free to use and redistribute (it's in a press kit). It just happened to have a lot of information i was looking for (and I cited it). If the issue is I relied on it too heavily and that I need to have more sources, I'll keep looking. Thanks for the info. - Hrundle		That is true. But that document isn't copyrighted and is free to use and redistribute (it's in a press kit). It just happened to have a lot of information i was looking for (and I cited it). If the issue is I relied on it too heavily and that I need to have more sources, I'll keep looking. Thanks for the info. - Hrundle

			I saw Denis the Tiger's comments--thank you for the info. I could delete all the environmental stuff in the article if that's the issue. I just though it added an interesting component. That would eliminate the "coatrack" quality and the concern posted above.