User talk:Richie1921

Welcome!

Hello, Richie1921, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note

Richie1921 - IRW was listed in the client list you just deleted. Yes but it is noteable of stand alone and not of a mention. Its also sources and the others are not.

edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Raben Group. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richie1Thoa. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HI

It appears that you might have a conflict of interest with regard to The Raben Group, so I am providing this notice to you.

Hello, Richie1921. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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.
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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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.

Would you please tell us if you have some relationship with that firm, or with some organization opposing it? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC) No relationship good bad or indifferent. Have an issue with Islamic Relief Worldwide afer reading what they do but don't work for them with them against them - none of it. Richie1921 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. Your editing is showing a pattern of WP:ADVOCACY. Please read that, and please read WP:NPOV, and make sure that your passion about these issues does not lead you to violate WP:NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. I don't deny am passionate or an advocate -and its why I said some consider them terrorists and some do not. I do also know that the raben group is now using it as a marketing page and that is not fair. Richie1921 (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agreed with latter part. When you login to WP, or edit it at all, you agree to abide by our policies - that is part of the Terms of Use. One of our policies is WP:NPOV. So you need to exercise restraint, and look at what all the reliable sources (as defined in WP:RS) say about it, and work on the article based on that. You cannot come here with an ax to grind. We'll work on this together to create a good, NPOV article. We'll get there. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Hello, I'm JaconaFrere. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to GigE Vision because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Jacona (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GigE Vision

Hello, I just noticed that you are trying to nominate an article for deletion. Please read WP:AFDHOW to know the proper process to list an article for deletion on Wikipedia. I hope this will be helpful. Regards. Hitro talk 17:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Israel Fund

Please preview your edits before posting them. Nearly every single one of your edits has broken the formatting on that article. -- haminoon (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Fenton Communications. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you keep changing the rules. If PR Week is not valid then PR Week is not valid. If opinion pieces cannot be used then they cannot be used. You cant have your cake and eat it too. Richie1921 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Fenton Communications. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New Israel Fund. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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.
Per WP:ARBPIA, New Israel Fund is subject to a 1RR restriction -- which you have violated. STOP your disruptive editing or I will report you for edit-warring and you may be blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that New Israel Fund and any article related to the Israel-Arab conflict is subject to a 1RR rule (see WP:ARBPIA). You have violated it several times now, you will be blocked if you persist. Zero^talk 09:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fenton Communications

You two need to stop edit warring over that page and take it to the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

I noticed you removed material because it "wasn't cited properly". However it was cited properly but nothing you have posted was cited properly. Please bear in mind that a webpage can change or move at any time so its best to include the date accessed field. Please also include the other information talked about in Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks! -- haminoon (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

You have been blocked for 24 hours from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: WP:AN/I discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban on Ronn Torossian to be extended to his company?. Thank you. Huon (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Babasalichai (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Darkwind (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]