User talk:Ferguson 1CP: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
question
No edit summary
Line 9: Line 9:


Please take a look at the [[Talk:Barclays plc|article's talk page]]. Can you provide recent reliable statistics with outside references as to the global and UK standings? — [[User:ERcheck|ERcheck]] ([[User talk:ERcheck|talk]]) 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at the [[Talk:Barclays plc|article's talk page]]. Can you provide recent reliable statistics with outside references as to the global and UK standings? — [[User:ERcheck|ERcheck]] ([[User talk:ERcheck|talk]]) 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


{{uw-vaublock}}

[[User:Hoops Venus Fly 56|Hoops Venus Fly 56]] ([[User talk:Hoops Venus Fly 56|talk]]) 21:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:25, 24 May 2008

Wikipedia welcomes all constructive contributions to our encyclopedia, but your recent addition to Barclays plc appears to be copyrighted text. Unfortunately we cannot accept copyrighted material for legal reasons, as it is not compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License under which Wikipedia is published. You may use external material as a reference, but your contributions must be in your own words. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke just now on the phone with Ferguson 1CP, who put this stuff here - they're a press officer for Barclays and didn't realise this would be a conflict of interest. (And hadn't heard of the publicity disaster last week concerning Microsoft.) I suggested they come to the article talk page, introduce themselves and supply info for others to add. (And be sure that releasing text under GFDL - putting it out of actual control - is precisely what they want to do.) So the text should just be reviewed by other editors for NPOV and maybe rewritten as needed - David Gerard 16:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that, with the major splash that the Microsoft story made, press offices of all major companies were not aware of the issue. David, thanks for taking action here. Ferguson, I second David's advice about discussion on the talk page. I call to your attention Wikipedia's policy on verifiable sources— so you can see what is needed for source information. — ERcheck (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely correcting the figures and statements already on there.Ferguson 1CP.

Please take a look at the article's talk page. Can you provide recent reliable statistics with outside references as to the global and UK standings? — ERcheck (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is being used only for vandalism. Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy, meaning that it is profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information.

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}}

Hoops Venus Fly 56 (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]