User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

May 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Andrew Lansley with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. gz33 (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Help desk could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing an article[edit]

Partly in response to your post at the Help desk, I made this change to the Andrew Lansley article. If that does not satisfy your concerns (or if you are just interested), let me explain how changes work at Wikipedia:

  • In the first place content on Wikipedia is determined by a consensus of editors. This means that in order to make your changes stick you need to persuade other editors to accept them.
  • One tool for persuasion is the edit summary: For each edit you can provide a one-line summary of what you are trying to do and why. Unless your edit is really obvious, you should always give an edit summary. Since your edits reversed the sense of the paragraph, and since you gave no explanation, other editors assumed you were vandalizing the article. One thing that gained acceptance for my edit was my edit summary: “a more accurate rendering of the source info”.
  • A second tool of persuasion is the talk page: Each article has a talk page where editors can engage in free discussion of the article; the talk page for the Andrew Lansley article is Talk:Andrew Lansley. If a change is too complex to explain in a one-line edit summary, or if your first attempt at a change is rejected by other editors, you should seek consensus on the article talk page. Since your connection with Low Associates gives you a conflict of interest with regard to them, you should always begin on the talk page for changes concerning them.
  • Another thing you need to know about Wikipedia is that content is supposed to be verifiable with references to reliable sources. Although you may hate the fact, due to its reputation for fact-checking The Telegraph is regarded as a reliable source whereas is not (except for the most non-controversial of facts). One thing that gained acceptance for my edit was the fact that I was reporting what The Telegraph actually said.

I hope this helps you understand. —teb728 t c 07:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)