User talk:50.242.96.105

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions&#32;so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply  [ create a named account] . It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (50.242.96.105) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! –Gladamastalk 20:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

May 2019
Hello, I'm Saucy. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Scott Cole & Associates— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Saucy[talk – contribs] 18:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Why did you change the page back? You're including incorrect information and this looks like vandalism.

June 2019
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it.  MrOllie (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You cut one of the most important Supreme Court cases to California workers in history? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.96.105 (talk • contribs)


 * If it is one of the most important cases in history, there should be a wide array of sources to pick from. I'd suggest one from a major newpaper. - MrOllie (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I have tried that before for things like this and Wiki users cut that too. They say it's just opinion. So, I cited to the actual case. You really think a source like a "major newspapers" (which is just some random reporter's opinion about its importance) is better than citing the actual case that effects 20 million workers? Also, did you notice that the "rule" you're citing is being violated all over this page (e.g., lots of references to small time settlements, links to marketing pages)? Any reason all those are allowed and this one is not? There are just so many double standards on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.96.105 (talk • contribs)


 * Absolutely, a newspaper article is better than citing the case, provided it is news content and not an op-ed, interview, letter to the editor, or other opinion piece. The case citation is what we call a primary source. Wikipedia is built from secondary sources. As to the rule being violated elsewhere: Wikipedia is a big site with a lot to do, and there are only so many volunteers to do the maintenance. If you find some content that isn't compliant with policy, that is a reason to fix that content, not to add more non-compliant stuff. - MrOllie (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)