User talk:16912 Rhiannon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

busted ref on Bruce_Haynes_(consultant)

Hi Rhiannon, there is some kind of ref-mishap on this article. Here is the one that gave me troubles:

• Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (25 March 1999). "Big Firms Gobble Up Lobbying Interests; Consolidation Is the Trend in Influence Industry". The Washington Post. Retrieved 25 April 2013.

The link is to here -- http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4C80-S2T0-TW87-N1RV&csi=8075&oc=00240&perma=true

Not having nexis access, I just googled for the title to find it at wapo archives.

That link is either here -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2004/04/27/big-firms-gobble-up-lobbying-interests/91500963-71c2-4f21-af34-4d654c686859/

Or partially-kinda here -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44908-2004Apr26_2.html

But as you can see in the URLs, both of those look to be from 2004, not 1999. Author is the same name though, at least for the first one. At first I was just going to change over the link from nexis to the wapo#1 that I found, but I don't see Purple mentioned in that one (it does mention Issue&Image plus also Steve McMahon but not in a way that helps the sentence that I can see). So I figured I better ask you, to see if the nexis-URL is just hooked to buggy metadata (i.e. correct datestamp but wrong author/title via some kind of cut-n-paste mishap possibly), or if maybe there was a more fundamental cut-n-paste problem (wrong cite pasted into the article about Haynes which talks about Issue&Image pre-purchase whereas you wanted a cite which was post-purchase from the next line in your spreadsheet or whatever). Anyways, if you still have nexis access, can you please see what the author/title/content is there, and if that link is the correct one, or figure out what is busted? Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for pinging me about this and sorry it caused so much confusion! After some digging I found that the date was definitely a cut and paste error on my part when I was filling in the citation, and I accidentally used the date from the previous article in my research. So, it should be 2004. Putting myself back in my shoes from 2013, I think that the other part of the issue here is the placement of the citation and that the sentence should have another cite to support it, but that got snipped somehow. Basically, I was seeking to use Birnbaum's article to confirm that Issue & Image is McMahon and Squier's firm. I think either (or both) of the below could be added to beef up the support for the info about Purple's founding:

<ref name=Carnevale>{{cite news |title=New Lobby Shop Sees Gold in Going Purple |author=Mary Lu Carnevale |url=http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/21/new-lobby-shop-sees-gold-in-going-purple/ |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |date=21 January 2009 |accessdate=4 August 2015}}</ref>

<ref name=Fang>{{cite news |url=http://www.thenation.com/blog/169696/former-democratic-strategists-now-boost-gop# |title=Former Democratic Strategists Now Boost the GOP |date=1 September 2011 |work=[[The Nation]] |accessdate=4 August 2015}}</ref>

Does that work for you? Thanks again for bringing this to my attention! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh no worries, I don't need help to get confused, I can do that all by my lonesome.  ;-)     Okay, so anyways, right now mainspace makes two claims in that sentence:

• claim#1 == In 2008, National Media Public Affairs merged with Issue & Image... to form the bipartisan communications firm Purple Strategies.
• claim#2 == ...Issue & Image, a company founded by Steve McMahon and Mark Squier...

quotes from the 4 refs, for backing the two claims

It has two refs, one is 2012 scNow.com-aka-TheMorningNews, in which Haynes is quoted saying "We’re [aka Purple is] a bi-partisan firm.... About three years ago [roughly March 2009 per WP:CALC but 2008 is also plausible], our firm National Media [Public Affairs] got married to [merged with] a Democratic firm [name not specified] and we became Purple Strategies. ...we’re [aka Purple is] a strategic communications firm..." The other is the 2004-not-1999 wapo piece (no longer cut-n-paste-mangled), which says "Steve McMahon (of Trippi McMahon & Squier) said potential purchasers are doing 'quite a bit of tire kicking' of the firm's lobbying affiliate, Issue & Image. 'If somebody made us an offer we couldn't refuse... we wouldn't refuse it,' [he said]." New ref is WSJ Jan'09, with this: "GOP strategist and issue ad guru Alex Castellanos has opened a new firm with two prominent Democrats... the firm’s name: Purple. ...Purple’s Democrats are Steve McMahon and John Donovan, who currently run 'Issue and Image' in Alexandria VA. McMahon was former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean’s media man.... National Media’s Bruce Haynes, who works on issues for PhRMA, the drug makers’ lobby, is also coming over from National Media. Both McMahon’s [Issue&Image] and Castellanos’ [National Media... one must presume ... but WSJ failed to say so!... sheesh] firms do issue-ad campaigns as well as 'strategic counseling, positioning, communications' for companies and nonprofits." New ref#2 is TheNation 2011, with the best quote: "Shortly after the general election four years ago [Nov'08 per WP:CALC]... Steve McMahon... merged his campaign company, Issue & Image, with [Alex] Castellano’s National Media Research to form Purple Strategies.  A search of FEC records shows that Squier’s new firm [Purple] has been...." However, it also counters the WP:ABOUTSELF bipartisan-quote from Haynes in scNow.com/MorningNews, with this: "One might assume the name 'Purple' would mean that the firm provides bipartisan services. But [as of the 2012 election cycle] the name seems to refer to only the firm’s composition...." And this is the whole gist of the article, aka that Purple is sekritly-super-red, gasp. Whether that is WP:THETRUTH or not, remains to be seen, but the nominally-WP:RS cite to TheNation does beat the partially-WP:ABOUTSELF interview-quote in TheMorningNews, so we need some better sources to characterize Purple Strat as bipartisan in wikipedia's voice -- we can use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to quote both Haynes and also Fang-of-WSJ, if need be, but a better solution is to find additional sources and see what they call Purple in terms of repub-lean-versus-dem-lean.

    Okay, so at the end of the day, without needing any WP:SYNTH, we have satisfied about 90% of claim#1, which now looks like this: "In 2008 (or early 2009), National Media Research (later called National Media Public Affairs) merged with Issue & Image... to form the bipartisan communications firm Purple Strategies." If we can get an exact cite for the merger-date -- all the four above are approximate and WP:CALC -- then we can simply say "in December 2008" or whatever the exact date happens to be. What about the name-thing? Was the company renamed at some point, from NMPA to NMR, or vice versa, or what exactly? I don't doubt they are the same firm, it just seems like something worth clearing up (for the history-of-Purple-Strat subsection of the corp-article if not specifically for the Haynes article). As for the 'bipartisan' thing, unless you think it is crucial, I also suggest we just drop the adjective, and leave the characterization of the bi- or mono- or mixed- nature of the firm, over in the article about the firm.

    But for claim#2 we are in trouble, because we definitely need better cites before we can say "McMahon and Squier are the founders of Issue&Image". All the sources that I've seen -- and I admit to being lazy so far and not searching on my own yet... since I'm assuming you have them more at your fingertips and neuron-tips than me -- sometimes imply that McMahon was the head of i&i, but rarely mention Squier, and when they do mention him, don't tie him directly to i&i. Even for McMahon, I haven't seen him explicitly called founder of i&i, just that i&i was "his" company, and that he in Jan'09 "currently run[s]" the i&i company (and co-ran it specifically with Donovan with no mention of Squier -- though later the WSJ'09 source implies that McMahon was the main co-run-guy and Donovan was somewhat the number-two-guy, in the same way but to a lesser degree that Castellanos was the main guy and Haynes was the number-two-guy over at National Media). We can, based on WSJ'09, say that Castellanos/McMahon/probablyDonovan were the co-founders of Purple. We can also say that, at the time, McMahon/Donovan were the co-leadership of i&i, whilst Castellanos was the sole-leadership of NMR (with Haynes under him)... but because WSJ'09 failed to tie Castellanos explicitly && specifically to NMR, that last bit is mildly wiki-improper. From the 2004 quote, we know that i&i was around back sometime before 2004, so the founders of i&i would most likely be mentioned in an older cite, talking about when the firm came into being, is my guess. Do you have something like that? Just guessing here, but perhaps that may have been a ref that got lost, in the cut-n-paste mishap, that you mentioned might have happened.

    Or, alternatively, do you agree that claim#2 is pretty small potatoes, w.r.t. being mentioned in the article about Haynes? We don't need to namedrop the i&i folks, when we can just link to the Purple Strategies#history subsection, which gives the story of the firm. Haynes was part of the early transition-team from NMR to Purple, and we have the WSJ'09 ref to back that part up, and methinks that is the only bit we need for this article, and can just elide the names-behind-i&i. Now at the moment, info about the i&i founders (and for that matter the NMR/NMPA founders) is missing over there, but WP:NOTFINISHED and WP:NORUSH apply methinks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

My other question about Haynes is whether he should be merged into the Purple Strategies article. There are plenty of in-depth refs on Castellanos(sp), but what are the main refs for Haynes which are specifically about him, in your view? Are there other refs that have been published more recently that 2013, that could shore up the demonstration of WP:N for Haynes? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday, I'm catching up on work post-travel and wasn't able to dive into the research again like I'd hoped to. So, I'd agree that the mention of the I&I founders isn't really necessary for this article, so that could be removed. FWIW, the way I was reading the Birnbaum source is that Issue & Image was created by the firm Trippi McMahon and Squier, hence McMahon and Squier were its founders.

Re: National Media Research vs. National Media Public Affairs, the latter is correct, there was no name change. National Media Research continues to operate as its own separate entity to Purple. What was merged with I&I to form Purple is National Media Public Affairs. However, you'll find most sources simply say "National Media", which is, of course, pretty darn confusing when National Media Research exists. As you can see from the sources about Haynes previous role, he was at National Media Public Affairs, so it makes sense that this was what merged with I&I to form Purple, since he moved to Purple and became managing director there. All that said, perhaps it would be best to change it in the article to say "National Media" per majority of sources?

Founding date is another one where quite a few sources got it wrong (based on what I was told by Purple): the company was formed in late 2008 but publicly launched in January 2009, so the latter is a date that keeps coming up in sourcing. The Nation, despite being otherwise biased against Purple, has it correctly, as does this Politico piece.

Overall, re: notability of Haynes, I was definitely on the fence back when I submitted this at AfC. If you look back in edit history at my comment when I submitted it, you'll see I noted that there wasn't a lot of coverage of him, though he is mentioned in a lot of articles and there's enough to put together this overview of his career. I'm not sure if there's newer sourcing that would help bolster, might be worth looking at. If you think that the article should be merged, I wouldn't put up a big fight. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH applies, as always. One of my favorite wiki-policies. So, to take your points in order you mentioned them....

gory details

Yes, I think we need to remove claim#2 about "founders of i&i" for the moment, because although Birnbaum alludes to that (implicitly), and although I fully believe you that it is the real-life truth (one of my other favorites is WP:THETRUTH :-)   wikipedians should not put two and two together per WP:SYNTH, unless blatantly obvious like WP:CALC-type situations. In particular, we don't want to list (in wikipedia's voice) McMahon&Squier as THE founders, because quite possibly there were other co-founders, such as Trippi and/or Donovan, and we should not imply otherwise by omission. I think the company-history of i&i belongs over at the purple-corp page, though, and if you have time to unravel the details (there), that is worth doing. If you are quite sure that McMahon&Squier were the two co-founders, and no other claimants to the co-founder title exist (Trippi? Donovan? other?), then go ahead and stick it into purple-corp citing wapo'04 (mcmahon/trippi/squirer) and also wsj'09 (mcmahon/donovan), but just immediately self-tag the 'founders' bit as , would be my advice.     NMR vs NMPA vs NM, no wonder I was more confused than usual, arrrrgh. Contrary to your fully-wiki-policy-compliant suggestion that we stick to reflecting what the sources say, in this specific case I'm very much in favor of pulling out good old WP:IAR. When the sources are known to be buggy because the journalists themselves were confused, 'tis better to correct the wikipedia article with the actual facts, and put an explanation of the confusion (and per-source explanation of the exact bugfix-correction applied) into a footnote or hidden-html-comment or similar. If there is a political endorsement, and the journalist misspelled the name of the endorsement-giver, for example, what I usually do is just fix up the name-typo, and leave a hidden-html-comment before the cite, explaining that although the source SAYS that "Lexlie Smith endorsed Dwight Eisenhover" the actual correct reliable factoid is that "Leslie Smith endorsed Dwight Eisenhower". In my view wikipedia should not further propagate confusion, so I'm pretty firmly against the use of NM as a euphemism for either-NMR-or-NMPA, despite confused journalists doing so. That will only make the already-confusing situation worse. Since you have the truth, this is a case where you should definitely use your knowledge of the actual specific legal entity being discussed (either NMR or NMPA ... or in cases where the source conflated the two ... either try and find a less-confused source ... or just rely on WP:IAR and leave a hidden-html-comment explaining the source was buggy and how exactly you corrected the buggy data).     On the date-founded question, good find, the Politico cite specifically says "which was founded in 2008" ... albeit then goes on to be confusing, with this: "...Haynes said the Republican partners from National Media..." without specifying NMPA versus NMR, sigh.  :-)     Couple that "in 2008" quote, with our other quote from TheNation'11, and we have a good narrow date-range: "Shortly after the general election four years ago [Nov'08 per WP:CALC]..." So I suggest we use the following language in the sentence for Haynes, you can say "late 2008" if you'd rather, or if you know the month the incorporation paperwork was actually filed, go ahead and specify "December" or whatever is correct, with an explanatory-html-comment to that effect: In November or December of 2008[Politico'11][TheNation'11][footnote: some sources mis-report the late-2008 merger as having occurred in early-2009, which was in fact the date the newly-merged firm publicly launched, e.g. refX refY refZ."] the company National Media Public Affairs,[scNowTheMorningNews'12] where Haynes worked as JobTitleGoesHere, merged with Issue & Image to form the communications firm Purple Strategies.[WSJ'09][hidden-html-comment-noting-use-of-wp:iar-and-wp:thetruth-to-correct-confusing-"NM"-to-proper-NMPA][TheNation'11][hidden-html-comment-noting-use-of-wp:iar-and-wp:thetruth-to-correct-wrong-"NMR"-to-proper-NMPA] [footnote: National Media Public Affairs was the entity where Haynes worked prior to the 2008 merger into Purple, and National Media Research was InsertRelationshipHereWithNMPA; both NMR and NMPA were run by Castellanos(sp), prior to NMPA merging with Issue & Image; as of 2015, the latter group NMR remains an independent entity under CEO-and-NMR-co-founder Robin Roberts, who is also now(politico'11) simultaneously a partner at Purple Strategies.]     We could also note that one corp was mostly-dem and one corp was mostly repub, but I think that stuff belongs in the purple-corp article. The next sentence in the Haynes article, might explain that Haynes's new role&jobtitle is the #2 repub-partner under #1 repub-partner Castellanos, where before at NMPA he was also under Castellanos... but not immediately as the #2 person? or immediately as #2 at NMPA... but also working in parallel with NMR affiliated org which was run by, whom exactly?? or maybe too complex to explain succinctly, and better to leave that NMR-vs-NMPA stuff in the purple-corp article.     Other loose ends. Suggest moving the wapo'04 cite to the purple-corp article, noting that i&i was a subsidiary of TrippiMcMahonSquirer, and that they were looking to sell or merge as early as the 2004 cycle (but did not actually do so until just after the completion of the 2008 cycle). Keep scNow.com-aka-TheMorningNews in the Haynes article (we need it for other sentences besides this one), but also copy the cite to purple-corp, where it can give WP:ABOUTSELF info that the firm describes themselves as bi-partisan, contrasted with the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV assertion in TheNation'11 (also needs copying over to purple-corp) of this contrary wp:rs view: "One might assume the name 'Purple' would mean that the firm provides bipartisan services. But [as of the 2012 election cycle] the name seems to refer to only the firm's [founder] composition...." And if you have additional wp:rs that call purple "bipartisan" in the newspaper's voice, use those to further balance out the sentence-or-two in the purple-corp which discusses the origin of the name as red+blue=purple, and then the partisanship-category of the clients the corp worked with in practice during the 2010/2012/2014/2016 cycles (as percentages of purple-corp revenues-per-cycle... iff those wp:rs figures exist and WP:CALC obviously applies). Move WSJ'09 over to purple-corp article, it calls McMahon & Donovan the people "currently running" i&i, plus dubs them "prominent" dems in the WSJ's voice which is WP:NOTEWORTHY... unfortunately like Politico'11 the WSJ'09 article suffers from the unqualified-use-of-NM-bug. I think that covers all the sources, so we don't lose any of them, and just shuffle the ones we no longer need for Haynes over to the Purple#History subsection of the corp-article.     As for wiki-notability, although the article seems unproblematic to my eyes, Haynes is below the traditional minimum-of-3 cutoff-threshold implied by WP:42; the scNowTheMorningNews is reasonably in-depth,[1] but it is also an interview and thus has a lot of wp:aboutself and it is a hometown newspaper rather than a national newsmagazine and thus loses some WP:N-related oomph. The other in-depth sources are kinda-sorta this one,[2] which isn't about Haynes but mentions him repeatedly and thus helps at the margins methinks, this not-really-independent author-n-contributor-blurb,[3] and this almost-certainly-not-independent member-blurb.[4] There are a lot of legit WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions, spread across a long span of years, which in my book counts for something. I also think the article, as-is, improves wikipedia, and that very likely more sources are forthcoming (they may already even exist), so this is not a permastub, and even if it technically might be WP:FAILN at present, has a good chance of crossing the wiki-notability threshold once more source-digging-work is accomplished. In other words, while we could do the work of merging Haynes into the Purple Strategies article, we would probably have to undo the work again, as more sources turned up.     I see little point in going through the merge-effort, personally, but I wanted to bring it up, so that you were aware that Haynes is definitely at-or-just-below the threshold for a dedicated article to my wiki-eyes (which you already knew pretty much), and also so that you in turn can make Haynes aware, if you wish. I've got no prob with paid editing, you seem well qualified to do it right, that's good for wikipedia, thanks. But as you probably know, there are plenty of people who would vote bangDelete just on the basis that the Haynes BLP was originated by that mechanism, and are less inclined to be lenient about WP:42 compliance (despite WP:Don't cite WP42 at AfD -- sound advice) when it comes to employees of PR firms, in particular. I don't personally care, one way or the other; keep or merge would both satisfy my wiki-honor; but it might be worth suggesting to Haynes that some more sourcing is needed, and see if he has any multi-paragraph sources in his scrapbook specifically about him (preferably non-interview-quotation-style cites), to beef up the existing case for wiki-notability, and failing that, see whether he would *prefer* to be pre-emptively merged into the purple-corp article as a portion of the 'partners' subsection or whatever, rather than risk getting an unfortunate 7-day-insta-consensus at AfD someday. If the article does come up for AfD, feel free to ping my talkpage, and I'll try and post my merge bangvote (and do some source-digging on my own rather than letting you do all the huffing and puffing ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

    #1. In November or December of 2008 the company National Media Public Affairs, where Haynes worked as JobTitleGoesHere, merged with Issue & Image to form the communications firm Purple Strategies.

    #2. Copy these refs to Purple Strategies, and work them in there, some specific advice in gory-details-greenbox above:

    #3. Strongly recommend junking the awpagesociety , and associated sentence about being a member thereof. It technically satisfies mutual-WP:ABOUTSELF, but I don't think it manages WP:NOTEWORTHY status, because although it is reprinted in his mostly-self-authored blurb at the Page Society website (and ditto for his mostly-self-authored blurbs at Politico/Bloomberg/AHIP/etc), that's pretty borderline and should be yanked for now methinks. Arthur W. Page Society, mentioned a few other places too (and with the *possible* exception of the BLP for which the group is named, which I note is also mutual-ABOUTSELF rather than ref'd to a newspaper or somesuch, should probably be eyeballed for possible removal as spip/puffery. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

    ref4 is 'blank' because I just pasted the named-ref here, the Bridges article in scNowTheMorningNews, should work properly once in the actual article. Speaking of which, I am perfectly happy to leave all the remaining work to you.  ;-)     That said, if you are not comfy doing direct mainspace edits about this stuff, or cannot find some other uninvolved eyeballs, then feel free to ping my talkpage and I'll help get the stuff fixed. Appreciate your time on this, and thanks for helping wikipedia. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Advanced Turbine Engine Company has been accepted

Advanced Turbine Engine Company, 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Harry & David , blast from the past #2

Hi again Rhiannon, noticed your good work again serendipitously.  :-)   Though I think you were last at this page in 2014, in case you still have an interest in the topic, and would like to make sure my recent once-over has not introduced bugs, figured I would leave you a quick note. See anon wp-coi-update-request that attracted me. Thanks, talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up here, I'm glad that you were able to look over the page. I do like to keep an eye on past projects, even if not paid to do so ;-) and I'm always happy to see improvements being made. Sorry I've not got back to you re: Purple and Haynes, that totally slipped off my to-dos last week... Will try to get back to it in the next couple of days, though I will say, for any current or past paid projects I do not make edits in live articles, so if there are changes that we've discussed and the edit needed is clear, I would prefer if you could go ahead. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Michael Birkin (marketing executive) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Michael Birkin (marketing executive). Thanks! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michael Birkin (executive) has been accepted

Michael Birkin (executive), 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much, FoCuS! I'm working on getting a photo of Mr. Birkin that can be uploaded to Commons and added to the article, so I hope you might be able to help with adding that later. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help. Ping me when that's done. Keep up the good work! I've also moved your colleague's XenDesktop draft. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of mergers and acquisitions by Citrix has been accepted

List of mergers and acquisitions by Citrix, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as List-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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: American Energy Partners, LP (September 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 Alpha Monarch was: 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:American Energy Partners, LP and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

♔ MONARCH Talk to me 04:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! 16912 Rhiannon, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 04:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:American Energy Partners, LP has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:American Energy Partners, LP. Thanks! ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 04:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: American Energy Partners, LP has been accepted

American Energy Partners, LP, 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

♔ MONARCH Talk to me 22:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft:American Energy Partners, LP Update & Publication

Hi 16912 Rhiannon – I have consulted an administrator and your willingness to declare that you have relationship with this firm, Is a legitimate per as WP:DISCLOSEPAY and you must make sure that you're willing to allow other editors to contribute to this article regardless whom they're. If you involve in any disputes with the editor this may result getting this account suspended for WP:COI. I hope you are willing to comply the policy based on WP:DISCLOSEPAY, I'll be publishing this article in a moment. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 22:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Monarch! And yes, I absolutely will comply with WP:DISCLOSEPAY and WP:OWN, I'd be very happy for editors to contribute to this article now it's live to help keep it up-to-date and accurate. Thanks again for your thoroughness of review. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Diamond Rio

Ahem. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:16912 Rhiannon/Harry & David

User:16912 Rhiannon/Harry & David, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:16912 Rhiannon/Harry & David and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:16912 Rhiannon/Harry & David during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Kinder Joy has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kinder Joy. Thanks! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Kinder Joy has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kinder Joy. Thanks! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kinder Joy has been accepted

Kinder Joy, 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hurray! Thanks for the review and taking this live, One5969. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, 16912 Rhiannon!

Happy New Year!

16912 Rhiannon,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Invitation to an online editathon

You are invited...
	Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red June 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hilltop Securities Inc. (June 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Hilltop Securities Inc. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hilltop Securities Inc. (July 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: 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:Hilltop Securities Inc. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! 16912 Rhiannon, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hilltop Securities Inc. (July 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tseung Kwan O was: 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:Hilltop Securities Inc. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 17:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Inquiry

How can I contact you off-wiki about hiring you to create an article on a subject of interest? 124.104.201.108 (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, the best way to get in touch is to email hello@beutlerink.com with details of the topic and your connection. Cheers, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ligado Networks logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ligado Networks 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ligado Networks logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ligado Networks 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Navitaire logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Navitaire 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki loves women montly contest- September

	Wiki Loves Women- Monthly Contest (September)!
	Hello, this is to notify you about a monthly article writing contest organized by Wikimedia User Group Nigeria in collaboration with Wiki Loves Women to increase the coverage of Nigerian women on Wikipedia! The theme for the month of September is Women in Entertainment. See the contest page here. Thank you. Delivered: 12:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:16912 Rhiannon/Hill+Knowlton Strategies

User:16912 Rhiannon/Hill+Knowlton Strategies, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:16912 Rhiannon/Hill+Knowlton Strategies and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:16912 Rhiannon/Hill+Knowlton Strategies during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: NetScaler has been accepted

NetScaler, 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Page review

Hey Rhiannon glad to see you again! I'd be happy to look at that and review it for you. I've been a bit busy so I couldn't get back to you sooner, but I can look at it in the next day or so. Toa Nidhiki05 22:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks so much Toa! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Toa! Let me know if you have any questions with my edit request. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. Been really busy with work and school lately - but I get a bit of a break tomorrow. I'll give it a look then. :) Toa Nidhiki05 23:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Toa Nidhiki05 23:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kosmos-Energy-logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kosmos-Energy-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) 17:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)