User talk:Physitsky: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:53, 16 February 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Montco (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent, you need to remove all links in this section. The Section entitled References and Authorities already includes the relevant links to professional organizations.

The additional links in the External Links section that remain continue to be irrelevant and commercially inclined: Both NACVA and AICPA sites offer products for sale.

Good enough, kill all the links. Montco (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to First Chicago Method. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Flowanda | Talk 12:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review these policies before editing

Hello. I believe you need to brush up on the following policies, as evidenced by your disruptive and unsubstantiated edits to the Sageworks page: WP:NPOV, WP:WORDS, WP:WEASEL to name just a few.

For example: you cite a report that talks about financial institutions being at risk for cyber attack. You then point to the fact that the company has financial institution clients, so therefore they are a high risk target. The source is "reliable," but it has no bearing on the company in question, and it comes across as a very thinly veiled attempt to make a baseless allegation.

We clearly don't see eye to eye on this subject, which is why I've asked several senior editors to review the page. Regardless, I'd advise you to review the policies above before making further edits to the page. --77 woodmont (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you to cease persistent attempts to disguise known risks posed by Sageworks services. As long as you continue to distort the picture, I will continue to rectify it. --Physitsky (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 21:50, 16 February 2015 edit 77 woodmont (talk \| contribs) 33 edits →Please review these policies before editing: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:53, 16 February 2015 edit undo Physitsky (talk \| contribs) 115 edits →Please review these policies before editing: Response. Next edit →
Line 17:		Line 17:

	We clearly don't see eye to eye on this subject, which is why I've asked several senior editors to review the page. Regardless, I'd advise you to review the policies above before making further edits to the page. --[[User:77 woodmont\|77 woodmont]] ([[User talk:77 woodmont\|talk]]) 21:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)		We clearly don't see eye to eye on this subject, which is why I've asked several senior editors to review the page. Regardless, I'd advise you to review the policies above before making further edits to the page. --[[User:77 woodmont\|77 woodmont]] ([[User talk:77 woodmont\|talk]]) 21:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

			: I'd advise you to cease persistent attempts to disguise known risks posed by Sageworks services. As long as you continue to distort the picture, I will continue to rectify it. --[[User:Physitsky\|Physitsky]] ([[User talk:Physitsky#top\|talk]]) 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)