User talk:Jillian.Ricard

I reverted your addition to Nuestra Señora de Atocha as it did not conform to Wikipedia guidelines, and did not provide any usable information. Please read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for information on how to cite sources in Wikipedia articles. Please also see the section on Reliable sources in Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information on what sources you should cite. -- Donald Albury 15:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guideline and policy I referred to above. Please do not try to add incorrectly formatted references to Wikipedia articles. Please also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which appears to apply to you. Also, please do not post comments to a redirect page, like you did to the redirect to my talk page. The page you posted to is not my talk page. It is clearly marked as a redirect page, and clearly states that comments should not be posted there. -- Donald Albury 13:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Sundquist Article

Regarding your response about my reverts to your edits to Ted Sundquist on my talk page. It is absolutely not "his wiki" it is a page regarding him on wikipedia, and should be neutral and well-referenced. You should not be editing a wikipedia page, based on someone's telling you what to put. All edits should be properly sourced and in a neutral POV. Please visit WP:BLP which is the list of policies regarding biography pages, especially regarding the issue of neutral point of view. You should not "take over" a page for someone you know, especially if there's nothing in the article that is inflammatory or unsourced. The only things I changed in the article made them sound more "wiki" like (there is a set format articles must follow) and for grammatical reasons. If Mr. Sundquist has an issue with what is in a page about himself, he absolutely can have it changed, but not from his personal memories. All info in the page must have proper references. If there are serious issues that you or he want looked at, please post a report at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, and a neutral, objective person will fix whatever needs fixed. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits}

Again, nothing you changed was specifically different from what the article already said. You just moved information around. Try to look at it this way: change things that are wrong, add things that aren't there but need to be there (with references). Don't just move information around, I guarantee you many people placed the information there, in the way they did, with regard to how articles are supposed to be written. There are grammatical rules, etc. Please don't change things just for the sake of changing them. The lead paragraph especially needs to remain the way it is. It should state what he is best known for, most recently. All the historical stuff can be added in a proper timeline, but the timeline does not need to be in the first paragraph. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"improving the flow"

In this comment you claim that this change was made by "Ravens, not by myself or lauramparsons". Presumably you meant Raven1977 (talk · contribs). That was not correct, the change was clearly made by Lauramparsons (talk · contribs). Please do not comment on other users by name like this, especially when you are mistaken. Since you link yourself with User:Lauramparsons in your comment it seems reasonable to ask whether you are associated in any way with each other or with Ted Sundqist? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Florida vs Omaha Nov 19 2010 009 - Copy.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Florida vs Omaha Nov 19 2010 009 - Copy.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

linkedin is not a reliable source

Linked in is not a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It is a self published source which can only be used for non-controversial or promotional claims about the linked in profiled person. It is not an independant third party source which is required to establish notability. Active Banana (^bananaphone 03:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential conflict of interest

note that if you happen to be the jillian ricard who happens to be a professional publicist and if you happen to have clients who happen to have articles on wikipedia. you shouldnt be editing those articles. in addition, if the above description happens to fit except that your client doesnt have a wikipedia article, you shouldnt create one. Active Banana (^bananaphone 04:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]