User talk:WickChic

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. –Merqurial (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. –Merqurial (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive or hard to read formatting, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. –Merqurial (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Larry R. Williams. RJaguar3 | u  |  t  20:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A Suggestion Intended as Helpful to You in Your Posting Contributions to a Discussion
Hello!


 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.


 * In a recent contribution of yours to a Discussion of an Article, you did sign your name, but because you simply (and logically) typed it, instead of using the "shortcut" of simply typing four "tildes" ("~" four times consecutively), one of those brainless automatons (a "bot" named "Sinebot") stumbled in, and it acted under the false impression that you had not signed your name.


 * Its clumsy action made it appear that you had vandalized the Discussion Page for that Article, when, of course, you had not.
 * I corrected the disfigurement that the robot Sinebot had committed upon your contribution, and I added the time-stamp that it intended, but failed, to append to your comment. I also moved your contribution to its proper place in the flow of that discussion, in accord with standard Wikipedia policy.
 * You might find the following suggestion helpful in any other comments you might like to add to a section on a Discussion page, so that you will comply with standard Wikipedia procedures in the placement of your contributions — and avoid clumsy intrusions from robots like SineBot:
 * After you have clicked the "edit" link for the section in which you are interested (as you did quite correctly), then enter your comment at the bottom of that section, not at the top, in order to preserve the flow of the discussion in that section, from its beginning, to the latest, most current and compelling comment, which is yours itself.
 * Distinguish your comment from that which immediately precedes it, by indenting your comment just one notch more than the immediately preceding comment.
 * You accomplish that by typing as the very first set of characters — at the beginning of your comment, and without any spaces — exactly one more colon  than the immediately preceding editor used to indent the last comment in that section.
 * Distinguish your comment from that which immediately precedes it, by indenting your comment just one notch more than the immediately preceding comment.
 * You accomplish that by typing as the very first set of characters — at the beginning of your comment, and without any spaces — exactly one more colon  than the immediately preceding editor used to indent the last comment in that section.


 * I hope you find this set of suggestions helpful, WickChic, and I wish you well in your work at Wikipedia.


 * Wordsmith (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ________________________________________________________________

Attention
Your version of Larry R. Williams's page is not well-formatted enough to be used on an encyclopedia. Now, don't revert it again. –Merqurial (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Kindly Comply with the Wikipedia Standards for Reliability and Verifiability

 * There appear to be no reliable, independent, credible, established, mainstream news sources that have produced any sustained, comprehensive coverage of your Larry R. Williams. You may satisfy this requirement for adequate sources to support your statements by finding solid coverage of the fact by such major national business news organizations in the financial centers of America, such as the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, Forbes magazine, Business Week, and so on. Unless you do so, any of your statements about this subject's financial prowess or prescience are subject to immediate removal. You may not use what Wikipedia regards as questionable sources.
 * — Wordsmith (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ______________________________________________________
 * ______________________________________________________

A Renewal of Previous Warnings Against Your Violations at Larry R. Williams
Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.


 * — Wordsmith (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ______________________________________________________
 * ATTENTION "WORDSMITH"
 * It is Oct. 3 and I find you have once again destroyed my improvements to the article on Larry Williams. As a journalist, I am familiar with standards like Wikipedia's for reliability and conformed to such standards in many articles and columns I wrote.  I will not tolerate your mutilations.   One more attack from you and I will ask management to chain you up.   I readily submit to criticism, and anyone has the right to improve the article. It needs plenty of improvement, and my time is limited.   NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DESTOY GOOD WORK, SUCH AS THE ADDITION OF FOOTNOTES, GOTTIT???     WickChic (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)  :
 * ____________________________________________________
 * There's nothing personal here. We're all in this together.
 * We all share the same goal: an encyclopedia with the highest standard for integrity.
 * Kindly understand that no one has attacked you, nor even criticized either you or your contributions.
 * We simply have noted that much of your material violates core Wikipedia policy regarding a neutral point of view,  verifiability, and the prohibition of original research.
 * We've gently, politely, and repeatedly invited and encouraged you to review those policies, to remove all the material from your article that violates these policies, and not to continue your persistent pattern of such violations.
 * We regret to see you've chosen not to take our invitations and encouragement to heart, even now, after all this time, but it's not too late. Kindly take a moment to step back, click on the links to the aforementioned policies, and review them with care.
 * — Wordsmith (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ____________________________________________________
 * — Wordsmith (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ____________________________________________________