User talk:TechnoTalk/Archive 1

Non-free rationale for File:Blackbookmarketresearchlogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Blackbookmarketresearchlogo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Logo was replaced with PNG version per notices on .jpg version page TechnoTalk (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Blackbookmarketresearchlogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Blackbookmarketresearchlogo.jpg. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Night Life (Ray Price album)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Night Life (Ray Price album), TechnoTalk!

Wikipedia editor The Pastafarian Church just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"'Allmusic awarded the compilation album 5 stars stating ' this 12-song collection' has a space before 'this'. I suggest you remove it."

To reply, leave a comment on The Pastafarian Church's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Night Life (Ray Price album)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Night Life (Ray Price album), TechnoTalk!

Wikipedia editor The Pastafarian Church just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Write a helpful note for TechnoTalk. It will be posted on their talk page."

To reply, leave a comment on The Pastafarian Church's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ultrasound, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diaphragm. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abdu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abdo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pretzel logic


The article Pretzel logic has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence of notability. Only source is Urban Dictionary, not a WP:RS - see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pam D  23:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edits
I cannot for the life of me see why you are so determined to add padding to the article on the academy of achievement. The article has been horribly promotional for much of its life, and as soon as I started removing the promotion, you turned up and started pushing it all back in again. I presume you're not a PR paid by them, so what's your aim? This seems to be a self-aggrandising group run by people with no public profile, that looks to coat-tail onto other much more notable individuals and activities; you have virtually no history on Wikipedia but have apparently decided to mount a crusade on their behalf. That's really quite odd. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:RV, instead of engaging in contentious edits, you are required to build consensus before reverting. I'm also flagging you for repeated vandalism - I'm not sure why you continue to add a nonsensical motto to the infobox, but please stop.  You accuse me of pushing horrible promotional material - I question which material you are referring to.  From what I can see of the long history and different versions, I agree that the history of the article was not up to grade A, but everything I've added is properly sourced.  I would like to seek some other opinions on this issue, because I fear you are too close to the subject.  Let's get consensus and resolve this amicably.  Don't become Gustav von Aschenbach and make this article your Venice.TechnoTalk (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you are required to get consensus before ramming contended material into the article time after time after time. You are on dangerous ground. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Thanks so much for your edits TechnoTalk! How can I turn it into an article from a stub? Best, Liza Zimmerman Liza Zimmerman (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Hi TechnoTalk I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. My attention was called to your editing by the notice you left on Guy's Talk page. You have created a series of somewhat promotional articles on companies and people, some of which have been the subject of confirmed promotional editing in the past. This is the pattern of paid editing in Wikipedia. I'm giving you notice of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and questions for you below.

Hello, TechnoTalk. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship 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 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.

Comments and question
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you have a conflict of interest or if you edit for pay; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have any connections with the subjects you have edited? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, with please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Thanks!

You can reply here - I am watching this page. Once you do, we can take it from there. Thanks in advance for talking! Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Jytdog - I learned about the Academy when I saw a Steve Jobs speech from a 1982 event. I followed it to the article and saw that there was a lot of contentious editing going on.  I cleaned up the sources and added info to beef up the article.  I have no connection to the Academy and am frankly surprised that any admin would choose to think that when looking at what I'm doing - adding properly sourced info and asking for consensus.  I'm perhaps being held responsible for four years of edit warring and apparently by allowing my work to continue, I somehow threaten Guy's identity as arbiter of significance for Wikipedia.  You can judge my work on its own merits as well - I feel confident it will hold up to scrutiny.  On the other hand did you see the vandalism that Guy added, by adding a nonsense motto to the infobox?TechnoTalk (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking! I am not an admin (Guy is, though). I don't get involved in content disputes when I am working on COI matters, but I will say that this edit adds a bunch of (what I consider to be) promotional content to the lead of article (the change to the body seems great); it is one of the reasons why I came here asking about COI.  But you should discuss the changes with other editors on the article Talk page.  As I said, I will not join that discussion.
 * In any case, you responded to part of the question about connections. Would you please clarify if you have a connection to other subjects you have edited here or articles you have created? (Please note that I am using "connection" broadly - any "interest external to Wikipedia" is a connection. So contracting with someone via Elance who asks you to work on article X, is a connection to X. Working for a PR agency that asks you to work on the article about X, is a connection with X.  There are all kinds of connections.  We look for people to just answer cleanly and broadly.)  Would you please answer the full question?  And if you want to revise your answer about the Academy that would be OK.  Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no external connection besides general interest in making the site better. Please let me know why you think otherwise.  Would a paid advocate take a client who has been fighting with an overreaching admin for four years?TechnoTalk (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot explain why people do anything. As I wrote to you at the top of this section, your editing is similar to those of editors who take jobs at Elance or work for a PR firm.  Your edits are somewhat promotional (as you have seen from yet a third voice at the AoA article and Talk page) and you are creating articles about fairly random people and companies (who are common subjects of paid editing).  Promotional editing on unrelated BLPs and companies - that is what paid editors do and why I asked you if you have any connection.  I don't approach everyone - just editors who fit the pattern.Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't like any of my contributions and feel they don't belong on Wikipedia, you are welcome to challenge them. Everything I've added has been reviewed and patrolled, and I've never been reverted and accused of anything until now.  My mistake in trying to get support from a disclosed paid editor non-withstanding, I feel my actions have been in the spirit of Wikipedia.  Does it not bother you that my properly sourced article with direct quotes from neutral media sources was removed without discussion?  Do you not feel like you're being deceptively used here to stifle free and fair contribution to the site?  Everyone has a role to play here, but if we all decided to be critics, policemen and bullying admins, the exodus of editors from the site would be even faster.  You can view the talk page talk:Academy of Achievement for my final word - for now.TechnoTalk (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like rhetorical questions. I do find your editing to be promotional.  I asked if you are receiving consideration and you have said no, so we are done here. I hope you can hear that feedback that I and others have given you, that you need to work on following NPOV better. Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel I am being neutral. The only info that could be considered promotional was direct quotes from the media - designed to provide context so that the article wouldn't continue to be attacked and gutted.  I put in nothing from my own point of view.  Without a discussion and consensus, this is quite the opposite of how Wikipedia is supposed to work.  Well, I'm on to my next article - Guy can go pick a different fight, and you can go back to waging your war on people who stand up to bullying vandalizing admins.TechnoTalk (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand you feel that way. Others are telling you that your editing is not. You can listen, or not. Plenty of people don't, and get in lots of fights, and end up getting thrown out of here. You will do whatever you like.  Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're actually trying to help and I believe you are sincere, so thanks. It's a necessary service you perform, yet not one of most glamorous.  If you ever get a chance to look at the academy website, there's some good info about the honorees there, and a good listing of mainstream media coverage.  Wikipedia readers looking for more info about why the Academy is listed on Wikipedia can always click the external link and make their own judgement.  Cheers.TechnoTalk (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * there is a difference between providing neutral information (whether about "good" things or "bad" things) that reflects "accepted knowledge" (which is what we provide, per WP:NOT) and promotional editing. You will learn that difference, I hope. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Others reading this entertaining thread could assume I'm wrong until they visit [] and see all the neutral info and third party media coverage (at the bottom) that is being kept from Wikipedia's readers by Gatekeeper Guy. Don't be lulled into complacency by his admin title.  Occupy Wikipedia!TechnoTalk (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am talking about your writing style which is promotional . If you actually think the writing style in a fund-raising brochure is a model for what the writing in an encyclopedia article looks like, you are hopeless.  I will not see your response as I am unwatching your page. 20:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you've read this far and aren't involved in this discussion, time to get a life - go have a beer with a loved one. I'm going to keep this thread because it illustrates my point.  I send someone to a site listing third party media coverage and they immediately accuse me of trying to take a brochure and turn it into an article?  Huh?  Where did that come from?  More thinking needed here, and less knee jerk reacting.  Maybe people need to slow down and stop judging.  Peace.TechnoTalk (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You are now being remarkably foolish
You have virtually no history on Wikipedia. I, on the other hand, have been here a long time - see. You are making unconstructive edits, adding puffery to an article. I am not making unconstructive edits, I am trying to stop you fomr degrading the quality of the encyclopaedia. If you carry on as you are, then you will probably be blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So said John Boehner to Barack Obama. "You're too new here so your opinion doesn't count."  Well actually Guy, on Wikipedia, it's consensus that counts, not overreaching bullying admins who take it upon themselves to block content and limit discourse.  I've said my piece on the article talk page and will leave you to your scores of angry little battles and pending conflict-related cardiovascular damage.TechnoTalk (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus of two people on a single article never overrides consensus as defined by our policies and guidelines. Which say: no promotional cruft. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dave Kurlan


The article Dave Kurlan has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unreliable sources and PR removed, leaving no sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Black Book Market Research for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Black Book Market Research is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Black Book Market Research until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Black Book Market Research


A tag has been placed on Black Book Market Research, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Black Book Market Research Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Black Book Market Research 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) 02:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Gravity payments logo.png


A tag has been placed on File:Gravity payments logo.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Nik the  stunned  14:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine - the goal is to have a logo there - whichever one that is used doesn't matter to me. And thanks for the general cleanup.TechnoTalk (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Dan Price photo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Dan Price photo.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Nik the  stunned  11:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dan Price photo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Dan Price photo.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) 02:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Black Book (company) (October 29)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.


 * Draft:Black Book (company) may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:TechnoTalk Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FoCuSandLeArN&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:TechnoTalk reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  17:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Technical" tag on topological game
Hi- I saw you added this tag to the page topological game. I rewrote the article a bit, and I think it's now much more readable, so I removed this tag. I think it's not too technical for its target audience at this point. It's still pretty technical, but the topic is mainly of interest to technical readers so I think that's okay. I would expect the typical reader to have the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in math, and probably some post-graduate education. If you disagree with my removing the tag, feel free to add it back, but please provide some specific examples of which sections you think are too technical and what kind of reader you think they are too technical for (but who would still be interested in the topic of topological games), and I can try some further cleanup. --skeptical scientist (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi - I've taken undergraduate engineering calculus classes and have read this article multiple times and quite honestly can't tell if it's a legitimate article or a hoax. The one source that is available online - the PDF - is not much help, besides drawing an analogy to chess.  Possible adding a good analogy (or two) to explain what a topological game is would help.TechnoTalk (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha it's not a hoax. It is a legitimate article, but the subject, topological game, is a super technical tool created by topologists to help them study properties of topological spaces. This is something that people usually never even hear about unless they are math grad students interested in certain subjects. Just out of curiosity, how did you hear about topological games, and why are you interested in them? If you want an analogy, it's like a game, except instead of being played between humans, it's played between the sort of "perfect mathematicians" that only exist in logic puzzles, instead of moving by placing pieces on a game board they make "moves" which only exist as mathematical abstractions, and instead of taking finitely many moves they take infinitely many. Calling it a "game" itself is an analogy, because it is only a game in a very theoretical sense. skeptical scientist (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I can't remember how I came across the article. I think I was just reading the site and stumbled upon it. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

September 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Dan Price. 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: 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. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * You deleted my article without consensus - it is you who are edit warring. I have requested comment from other impartial editors on this issue. Please discuss on the talk page or I will request to have you blocked.TechnoTalk (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Dan Price. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm specifically warning you not to persist on editing the article. You are supposed to discuss on the talk page but you are not supposed to edit against consensus. If you have compelling reasons why we need to retain the article as opposed to covering it in the company article, explain it on the talk, but don't edit war on the article. In addition, may have started the article but you don't WP:OWN it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Dan Price
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, TechnoTalk!

Wikipedia editor Haxwell just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"The article still has multiple issues!"

To reply, leave a comment on Haxwell's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Haxwell (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ofo (bike sharing)
I've reverted you edit per the edit summary. I see now that you did not add a copyvio sentence. That was already there. Please use the talk to discuss changes so massive that remove many references. Please observe WP:BRD in this case. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)