Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

How about getting the Dow Corning article a higher resolution version of the logo. See Exxon Mobil or Apple, Inc. where we have an svg file that has unlimited resolution. Svg files store the image as vectors that can be scaled to any size while retaining resolution.

That's a great tip, thank you!

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Article needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner.

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:Ari Rastegar 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:Ari Rastegar, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gusfriend (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaryGaulke! 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! Gusfriend (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MaryGaulke. I happened across your username and remembered you from several years ago. After reading the notes about the draft on Ari Rastegar being declined, I took a look at it, then spent some time searching for more sources. I didn't find them. Unfortunately, it looks like it will be difficult to prove that he's notable in the Wikipedia sense. You might have better luck with coverage of his company, although given the articles that showed up in the search for more information on Rastegar, depth of coverage may be a problem. I know Wikipedia's rules and guidelines can be demanding, and I appreciate your working within them. I wish all paid editors would do the same. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gusfriend, thanks for your review. @BlackcurrantTea: Thanks for taking the time to do some research and share your input! I'm honestly surprised that Rastegar might not meet WP:GNG. I think several of the citations in the article (e.g. Commercial Observer, D Magazine, GQ, CBS DFW, Austin Monthly) qualify as significant coverage and reliable sources – am I off base here? Want to make sure I'm understanding for my future work as well. Many thanks. Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gusfriend and BlackcurrantTea: Hi both! I promise this is the last ping, but just double checking if either of you have input in response to what I wrote above. No worries if not; just trying to make sure I'm understanding how the guidelines apply here. Thank you again. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is looking better now than when I reviewed it and certainly worth submitting again. Gusfriend (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MaryGaulke. I'm sorry for taking so long to get back to you; my schedule's been a bit mad lately. I see the article's been moved to mainspace, so it looks like all's well. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Thanks for the reply. Mary Gaulke (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Rastegar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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 . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Missvain (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MaryGaulke. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:MaryGaulke/sandbox/Neville Ray, 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) 17:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than misuse WP:COIN for your business interests, try offering a reward at WP:RB. Volunteer editors have to see a reason to edit or they won't. — Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice; I'm surprised I've never heard of this forum before. If you happen to know and are willing to advise – I can't find any RB-specific COI guidance. (Closest recent discussion I could find was an unanswered question on talk.) I assume monetary rewards would be inappropriate but reciprocal editing (of non-COI articles) would be OK? I am always eager to show my gratitude to volunteers who help my work, but it's a tricky needle to thread without introducing additional bias into the review process. Sincerely appreciate any insight you're willing to share. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So long as you state in your post that you have a CoI, I think you're fine. The awardee would have a CoI themselves if they complete your task for reward so you might point that out. I see no reason why you cannot offer a monetary reward, although many might edit just for a barnstar. Again, the only problem Wikipedia as a community has is ensuring transparency. Only some editors hate CoI editors out of jealousy. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised by that, honestly – if an editor has a COI from a reward, I would think that they would be discouraged from editing directly the same way that I am, regardless of disclosure. I'm not sure I understand the difference, but I'll keep looking into it to make sure I'm not running afoul of any guidelines. Thanks again for your time. Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaryGaulke: If add that entry up at the coin noticeboard again, which is entirely the venue, I will start issuing warnings against for disruptive editing. scope_creep^Talk 15:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]