Talk:Jing Ulrich

Orphan tags

 * 72.75.70.147 has twice (here & here) added orphan tags to the article.


 * 867xx5209 has twice (here & here) removed them.

I'm not at all sure the tags are needed. — Athaenara ✉ 02:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the history for and this report that I am still preparing for possible submission to Suspected sock puppets ... these meatpuppets have been creating, and adding "marginally" related material to, articles in order to keep this one (recreated after deletion less than a month ago) from being an "orphan" ... most of "What links here" are references to the previous incarnation of the article, which was a Conflict of interest/Noticeboard incident that resulted in three out of four articles being deleted by AfD, and this one being deleted at the author's request rather that go to AfD ... in hindsight, I guess that I may have violated Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point with the first tag, but it at least it did bring them out of the woodwork and expose their actions to the scrutiny of others. &mdash;72.75.70.147 19:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue here 72 is your activity. What POSITIVE contributions have you made to Wikipedia recently? Any content added, links improved, writing clarified? I doubt it. You seem to move to a new IP address every week or so - looking for articles to attack. What are you running from by changing to new IP addresses? Is it that Admins have had to block your previous IPs for disruptive behavior? What's the point of obsessing about specific articles? If you have a concern, bring them up in the proper context rather than asking a specific Admin to CSD a piece like the one on CLSA. If you have improvements to make, make them. Otherwise, do something else.
 * 867xx5209 01:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC) 01:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already answered your questions on User talk:867xx5209 @ 19:07, 23 June 2007 (that's your own talk page, BTW), and several hours earlier on Talk:Gary Coull @ 13:47, 23 June 2007 ... you really should learn how to watchlist pages that you edit so that you'll be notified when people make changes to them, like replies to your inappropriately placed comments ... I can always copy my replies to this talk page if you'd like others to see them as well, but that would be off-topic, so please confine your personal attacks to user space, as I did with my longer reply to your attack on the Coull talk page, rather than clutter it up even more.


 * Anywho, the short answer could have been found days ago if you had just taken the time to click the Very First Link on my user talk page, i.e., Not a topic for conversation ... and if that isn't enough of an explanation, then read Anonymous WikiGnome or Sockpuppet? &mdash; 03:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, thanks for confirming that and  are, in fact, the same user ... the one who vandalized the page  on 29-31 May 2007 by blanking it to remove warning messages.


 * So, either (a) you are a sockpuppet vandal (using more than one account at the same time in order to promote your own agenda), or else (b) you are, the husband of the subject of this article, in which case you've already dealt with the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard before, and thus you know how this will most likely end ... FYI, there is nothing "personal" about it; I'd devote just as much energy for any contributor with a vanity or self-promotion agenda. :-) &mdash;72.75.70.147 04:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Such bickering doesn't improve the article.
 * 2) An orphan tag doesn't improve the article.  — Athaenara ✉ 05:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ad tag
I would like to see a discussion if this article warrants an ad tag.--Now wiki (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not sure it does need a tag. We can fix simple problems easily; I've just removed an unnecessary and embellishing word from the article. If you like you might be able to tone it down further, but I didn't see anything too egregious. Dawnseeker2000   19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree this reads very much like an ad for the person the article is about. this sounds like it was drawn from JP Morgan itself or something, and plays up a lot of her experience without providing much citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheraj.G (talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It does seem necessary. Much of the heading directly coincides with what's written on Ms. Ulrich's LinkedIn page, much of which should probably be neutralized (e.g. "an expert on China, Ulrich helps foster greater East-West collaboration", "Ulrich played an important role in key investment-banking transactions in the region"). Not exactly in alignment with our policies. I've added a tag, and those who wish to dispute it can do so here. asoundd 08:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jing Ulrich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930044049/https://www.clsa.com/public/forums/press/swf/20030915_CF03.swf to https://www.clsa.com/public/forums/press/swf/20030915_CF03.swf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505023407/http://www.db.com/presse/en/content/press_releases_2003_2262.htm?month=9 to http://www.db.com/presse/en/content/press_releases_2003_2262.htm?month=9
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928055415/http://old.institutionalinvestor.com/includes/rankings/show.asp?searchtype=A&iyear=2000&teamID=3&id=1254 to http://old.institutionalinvestor.com/includes/rankings/show.asp?searchtype=A&iyear=2000&teamID=3&id=1254

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)