User talk:Nuggets of Knowledge

Nuggets of Knowledge, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Nuggets of Knowledge! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Hunger in the United Kingdom 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: Hunger in the United Kingdom was changed by Nuggets of Knowledge (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.892598 on 2015-10-10T15:10:35+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to George Osbourne does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tax credit

Hi

I've reverted your most recent edit to this article. I think you're bringing an agenda to your editing, possibly inadvertently. For example, the Independent article talked about people wanting Osborne to make changes to protect the vulnerable, but that's not the same as completely opposing his plans, which is what your edit implied.

Please take care when editing politically sensitive material.

Cheers

Andyjsmith (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to George Osborne, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.

You changed the wording by copying my edit summary from Tax Credits and slammed it into the article any old how - lacking a clear context and difficult to understand. This seems to be deliberate disruption - please don't do it! I don't care about your political views, Wikipedia is a place for neutral, balanced, accurate editing. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it because I assumed what you wrote would be OK. Nuggets of Knowledge (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was an edit summary! Seriously, if you're unsure about how and where to add info to an article do please ask. Andyjsmith (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to George Osborne. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. I've reverted your recent edits to both the Osborne and Toynbee articles. Adding illustrative material is OK, but you are quite clearly and deliberately using your editing as a cover for political commentary. If you don't stop that, I may be forced to ask for sanctions against you. Please read and inwardly digest WP:NPOV. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you check my sources others see John Major's comments as veiled criticism of Osborne too.

That's not what I said! You could probably find plenty of supportive quotes too, if you were minded to do so - which you are clearly not. It's not our job as editors to pick and choose between opposing points of view but to reflect them fairly and accurately. In order to do this we are required, wherever possible, to choose secondary sources. In this case that means not selecting quotes yourself based on your own interpretation and beliefs, but finding neutral, reliable third parties who will provide a valid and independent interpretation. If an editor selects quotes on a contentious issue such as this they run a serious risk of breaking wikipedia's "original research" and neutrality rules. Please read the policies at WP:PRIMARY and WP:NPOV: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias." Andyjsmith (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Multiple account question". Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]