User talk:16912 Rhiannon/Archive 3

Your submission at Articles for creation: New-collar worker has been accepted

New-collar worker, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Chetsford (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nice job

		The Original Barnstar
		Nice job on new-collar worker and thanks for being faithfully observant of WP:COI guidelines. Chetsford (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Chetsford! This was a departure from the usual articles I work on, and I'm happy that it worked out so well. Just one quick ask for you: would you mind removing the connected contributor banner from the article itself? Once an article goes into livespace, current consensus is that the connected contributor banner should just be kept on the Talk page. Thanks again! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course - sorry I didn't notice it was still on the article. Removed now. Chetsford (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chetsford, much appreciated! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition

		The Purple Star
		For your copious amounts of honesty, integrity, equanimity and patience on the HubSpot talk page. — *Keithbob* • Talk • 16:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Keithbob! That one was definitely a bit of a head-scratcher, so I'm glad for you and Kvng to have taken a look and confirmed I wasn't missing something. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeff Jones (executive) has been accepted

Jeff Jones (executive), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Chetsford (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review and taking this live, Chetsford! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for disclosing your COI and doing a very fine job writing an encyclopedic BLP! Chetsford (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for diligently disclosing COI and faithfully adhering to NPOV. Chetsford (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing disclosure

Hi, I looked through some of the articles you have listed on your user page and I noticed that you used {{connected contributor}} to disclose your connection on several articles. I do want to thank you for disclosing your COI however, from your user page it seems that you were paid to edit these pages. In that case Wikipedia's ToU and en.wp's Policy on paid editing requires greater disclosure. Specifically it requires disclosure of 'employer, client and affiliation'. In this case employer would be whomever engaged your company, client would be on whose behalf the edits are being made (often the same as employer) and affiliation would be the name of your company. Some of the articles which are concerning are:

Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004 — no declaration
European Market Infrastructure Regulation — no declaration
NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement — ••
Purple Strategies — ••

•• Employer and client not specified also does not note that this was work for hire. Please use {{connected contributor (paid)}} instead of {{connected contributor}}

I just did some quick spot checks and many had proper disclosures, which I thank you for. Much of what I saw was noting clients within {{connected contributor}} templates. This does not meet the disclosure requirements because the paid relationship is not made explicit ie a random reader would not know that you were paid by someone based on what is on the talk page. Please check through the others and make sure each article has the required disclosures. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Hi Jbhunley and thanks for this note, that's a good reminder to go back and update these old projects. As you might have guessed, these were projects that I'd completed before the new template was created (and I think before the ToU update) and I would have disclosed the affiliations in my Talk notes, but I appreciate that someone looking now might not realize that. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Updating the articles to the new template would be a great help. Beyond letting other editors know of the paid relationship it helps with the collection of statistics. Each template tags pages it is on with a different category, basically whether the COI is paid or not which helps with understanding how COI vs Paid COI is being managed etc. Cheers! Jbh ^Talk 19:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understood! I think I've caught them all now. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thank you very much! Jbh ^Talk 21:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Kosmos-Energy-logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kosmos-Energy-logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetar thoughts

Hello Rhiannon,

I spent awhile thinking about the Magnetar article. The further I dig into, the murkier things get. Well, not murky, just complicated. I wrote many comments on the article talk page. The entire article needs to be re-written as it is an outdated mess. I could clean up the entire thing, but I don't know if there would be objections from other editors that you have recently pulled in. I agree with much of your critique of the article as you stated on the talk page.--FeralOink (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FeralOink, thanks for writing me back about this. I think "murky" and "complicated" about sum up the situation on Magnetar. I'll reply more to you over there, but wanted to note here that I appreciate you looking into this and offering your thoughts. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rhiannon. I'd rather have our brief off-article chats on my own user talk page. I will leave a brief response to you there, and will add more to the article talk page after that.--FeralOink (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Huffman

Hi, sorry, I was busy. I'll try to take a crack at looking over the changes tonight. At least, verifying the references first. Opencooper (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Opencooper! No worries. Let me know if you have any questions or additional feedback. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions to Wikipedia

Hi – I just helped you out with putting in the Citrix edits. I am not going to be able to help you any more unless you are able to contribute to Wikipedia besides through your commercial efforts. There are numerous ways you could participate, such as with the guild of copy editors or new page patrol. I look forward to seeing in your contribution history that you are able to schedule additional time to improve the encyclopedia, and I think this will improve your standing in the community. Without others helping you, Beutler Ink’s business model will no longer work. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 03:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this candid note, Tim, I certainly appreciate what you're saying here. In the spirit of that candid approach, I do want to be honest that I've considered in the past and been torn on how to approach. What my colleagues and I don't want to do is cause more concern or work for the volunteer community. We're mindful that making edits from accounts that say that they're strictly for paid editing is likely to raise suspicions, even if I (or my colleagues) make a point of saying that certain edits are not paid. Likewise, we have strictly volunteer accounts but in some cases, my colleagues don't want to link them to their Beutler Ink account for privacy. We've thought about whether to create secondary accounts that are for "Beutler Ink but volunteer editing". As you might be able to tell: we've discussed it a lot! In any case, I recognize that it would be good for me specifically to do more volunteer editing and I'll work on that. Thanks again for your help and for this feedback. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you or Beutler Ink want to comment on what work you did on for the Steve Huffman page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Steve_Huffman

I've reached out to several news organizations to let them know we are seeing some edit wars on a page for a guy caught modifying comments on his site. I also sent them some screenshots of you personally selecting opencooper by name to make some edits and how that is the same editor who appears to be in the edit war.

Additionally what are your thoughts? Do you think a major news event (Even a negative one) is worthy of a seperate section on Wikipedia? You seem to have a vested interest in the Huffman page so the official position would be nice to hear.

Let me know if you'd like to comment for those. I want to make sure we include all sides in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siihb (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Siihb, thanks for your note here. First up, Beutler Ink is not currently working with Reddit, and has not been for some months now, so I do not have any current connection to Reddit or Huffman. Second, I believe it's up to the Wikipedia community to decide in what fashion any information should be included in the article for Huffman. I don't know if you looked back in the article's history, so you might not have realized: before my requests the page did not mention spezgiving and I requested the addition of material on spezgiving based on its significant coverage in secondary sourcing. Finally, just to be clear, Beutler Ink has no connection of any sort to Opencooper. I pinged them when I first started making requests on the Huffman Talk page because they'd recently been editing the page. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: I've removed my surname from your comment per WP:PRIVACY. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my bad about that. Appreciate the responses. Siihb (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hiltrud Werner (November 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

More detail needed to demonstrate how she meets the criteria for a biography on Wikipedia - any awards she has won or any commendations she has received?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hiltrud Werner and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Hiltrud Werner, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 16912 Rhiannon! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MurielMary (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Western State College of Law Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Western State College of Law Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hiltrud Werner has been accepted

Hiltrud Werner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NY Life article

Hello, Rhiannon.

I left a response for you on my talk page.--FeralOink (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A chat

Do you have time for an offline chat? I can be reached at johnbackbay@gmail.com. Thanks. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Kirshenbaum (October 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Most of the sources are about Kirshenbaum Bond rather than him and sources where he is featured are largely interviews/his comments so not independent thus cannot be used to establish notability. Also, be careful about crediting him with ad campaigns, such as Snapple when the source states "he and his agency". It is clear Kirshenbaum Bond is notable so I suggest an article about the firm (i.e. why would a founder of a firm be notable when the firm itself is not?). For his books, it reads "he did something". To a reader, it needs to be clear what that something means (why do I care?), which is accomplished by summarizing what others said about that something. See also the notability guidelines for books.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Richard Kirshenbaum and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 16912 Rhiannon! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard Kirshenbaum (February 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dane was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Richard Kirshenbaum and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- Dane ^talk 06:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Richard Kirshenbaum

Hello, 16912 Rhiannon. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Richard Kirshenbaum, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]