Talk:Asurion

Question

Why is this fair use but my article (which I've written based solely on the facts) is not ok?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/RevengeoftheJedi.JPG

Fair use rationale for Image:Asurion.jpg.gif

Image:Asurion.jpg.gif 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 Wikipedia articles 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an advertisement.

It may be written "solely on facts," but where are the citations for them? AlexHOUSE (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Added advert template. -raylu^T 01:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck. What does "provides mobile protection" mean? Marketing drone dreck language. 1kenthomas (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I've tried to pare it down a little, and eliminate what appears to me weasel language. Comments welcome. 1kenthomas (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• • • I think I might try to edit this a little. I technically won't have sources other than rewording the page to sound less like an advertisement so the company can at least stay on Wikipedia, but I will attempt to describe the company based on going through it as a consumer. ArthropodOfDoom (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • • I have given it a shot, based on what I can find from reliable third-party sources. Please feel free to suggest improvements to increase neutrality. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct misspelling in Reference section

Would someone please correct the misspelling in Reference #8. It should be "Israel," not "Isreal." Don't know why but I was unable to edit the References section.