Sandra hudson

Recent edits to KQED

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Surfer43 (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The changes I made to the KQED Wikipedia entry are a result of KQED changing its corporate name and reconfiguring its business units. It is the most current and accurate information available about this organization. The additional information I supplied is meant to define the business units and explain their purposes. These statements are approved and authorized by KQED and are not meant to be biased in any way. Nor are they meant to "sell" KQED to anyone. They are how KQED defines its business. Sandy HudsonSandra hudson (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to KQED has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: KQED was changed by Sandra hudson (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.873368 on 2013-06-14T00:44:50+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Surfer43. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to KQED because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. FYI this is a template and I did not revert your edit, ClueBot NG did.Surfer43 (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Sandra hudson. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article KQED, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. TheStrike Σagle 09:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

I see that you work for KQED. Some things to note:

• Though KQED is the subject of that page, it is not "your page". You have no more control over it that any of the thousands of other editors here.
• Your most recent edits have disrupted the proper formatting I used and have left the page with a non-neutral point of view. Your rationale was not sufficient to support such damage.
• Your employment presents a clear conflict of interest. It would be best if you suggest edits on the talk page, rather than edit the page directly.

My edits preserved as much information from your revision as was possible while maintaining a neutral point of view. If some specific piece of information in the article is wrong, please request the necessary corrections on the talk page. If there is information missing that you would like to see added, please present it on the talk page, with references to reliable sources, and another editor will add it for you (see edit requests). Thanks. Mysterious Whisper 01:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)