User talk:Carolinehickey

June 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Red Brick Road, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Hi, I understand that you are an employee of the company, but as per wikipedia policies there is a format for writing articles, you cannot just write any article as you like. Wikipedia tends to be neutral, your edits make it look like a business card. Daiyusha (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Carolinehickey. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Red Brick Road, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional editing and edit-warring

Please don't add promotional content to Wikipedia. I'm not sure what "ideas with a following" is supposed to mean, apart from being a bit of marketing-speak designed to give the reader a vague sense that in some way the "ideas" are good, but such language does not belong in a Wikipedia article, which needs to be written from a neutral point of view. Likewise, a list of clients is the sort of thing that a marketing business might like to post on its own web site, in the belief (justified or not) that the business's standing in readers' eyes will be enhanced by association with well-known names, but it is no part of Wikipedia's remit to do that. It is also a mistake to think that all historical content should be removed from an article if things have changed: if we took that line we would not have articles at all on Henry VIII, Adolf Hitler, or Julius Caesar. The company may well like to remove historical information from its own web site, but the purpose of the company's web site is very different from the purpose of Wikipedia.

Also, please look at Wikipedia:Edit warring. You will see there that repeatedly making the same, or substantially the same, edit ion the face of disagreement from other editors is considered unhelpful, and if continued it may lead to being blocked from editing by a Wikipedia administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]