User talk:Techsearch547
Techsearch547, you are invited to the Teahouse
|
Hi Techsearch547! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
June 2013
Hello, I'm Psychonaut. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Jodee Rich without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Psychonaut (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jodee Rich, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. The rationale you gave for the removal of the quote ("Quote does not support the proposition for which it is referenced") is not valid. The sentence you removed indicates that "Rich was notable for receiving a cash bonus of $6.9 million, as joint managing director, in a year when the company recorded an annual loss of $291 million after tax." The Sydney Morning Herald article used as a reference for this reads, "The cash bonuses of $6.9 million each, paid to the joint managing directors Jodee Rich and Brad Keeling, were revealed in the 2000 annual report, which also recorded an annual loss of $291 million after tax." Psychonaut (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Jodee Rich
Jodee please stop rewriting your bio in your own interests. "The Australian" is not anti-Rich but tells it how it is. Your enormous business failures are what makes you notable - without them you are nothing but a Rich Kid. Take pride in your palpable failings and take ownership of them. Castlemate (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Better source request for File:Easy Riding on the Information Highway - cover.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Easy Riding on the Information Highway - cover.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Easy Riding on the Information Highway - cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Jodee Rich. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please do not refer to other editors as trolls as you did in this edit. Psychonaut (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jodee Rich. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Psychonaut (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
February 2014
Hello, Techsearch547. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Jodee Rich, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. tutterMouse (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 11 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Jodee Rich page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)