Talk:Gooseberry Patch

Please help to explain how this page is any different than Vermont Country Store as they have a similar product line and I believe our page was written in the same tone as theirs. Should I be putting this somewhere else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooseberrypatch (talk • contribs)

Per Deb referenced from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gooseberrypatch)

Administrator or Deb - I did not intend to get Vermont Country Store in trouble. I've removed the contact information from our page, is there anything I can do further to be valid? Any assistance would be very much appreciated. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooseberrypatch (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid this page still reads very much like an advertisement. If you want it to stay, you need to concentrate on giving impartial information about the company. Deb 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The best way to start is to boil the entire article down to a stub -- that is, five or six sentences, laying out the basic, neutral facts about the company. This should include the type of company this is, the founding date, the founders, its location, the number of employees, and other relevant, publicly available information about the store. I would also strongly encourage references to news articles or other reliable sources that mention the company. (I'd start by making reference to these.) I'm taking the speedy tag off for now; I think this can be suitably cleaned up for Wikipedia's purposes. Remember, think "encyclopedia," not advertisement. This article has to be neutral, and will probably end up coming across more dryly than anything the company would say about itself. Drop me a line if you have any questions. JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooor I could just do it myself... :) JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's good. Looks quite professional now. Deb 12:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Deb and JDoorjam for your assistance and taking the time to clean up our page. I really appreciate it.

Fair use rationale for Image:GBP logo.gif

Image:GBP logo.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 11:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gooseberry Patch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100629202556/http://en-us.nielsen.com/content/nielsen/en_us/insights/rankings/books.html to http://en-us.nielsen.com/content/nielsen/en_us/insights/rankings/books.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]