User talk:Irishroyal109

Welcome!

Hello, Irishroyal109, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Irish royal families, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Assume good faith as much as reasonably possible, and then about half-way past the border for unreasonable possibility. - Since you are new here, it is a really good idea to consider that people who have been here longer probably know more about how this site works than you to. You can also assume that most of them do want to help you learn how the site works, since that helps the site.
Noone owns any article here, or even their edits to articles. The text at the bottom of the edit page, right above the "Save page" button basically means that if you don't want someone to change or even remove what you add, then you need to use another site. - It was not rude for C.Fred to clean up after you. It was rude for you to demand an apology for it.
Wikipedia articles are written from a third-person perspective, not first person ("I," "we") nor second person ("you"). -- Your addition based on your observations went against this. And after all, how is a reader of the article supposed to know who "I" refers to? Articles are written by a variety of people, many of them anonymous. "I" is thus a useless word in articles.
"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.

Ian.thomson (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Limes 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: Limes was changed by Irishroyal109 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.949378 on 2015-03-13T07:34:42+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A more detailed explanation for this warning: this edit removed more content than it added. That triggered ClueBot into thinking it was vandalism. Had you not removed the formatting code and the sourced material, your edit still would have been reverted because it did not cite any sources, and did not adequately introduce the topic. Articles begin with an introduction that explains the essence by summarizing the rest of the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]