Jump to content

User talk:Wtil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rob Enderle

[edit]

The three times (1, 2, and 3) you edited the Rob Enderle article, you erased its citations. It seems to me that you might be taking the text from this link, loading it into a text editor, making your changes, then re-saving them on Wikipedia. This method loses the markup information. When you edit an article, it is important to start with the article's source text <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Enderle&action=edit>. —Fleminra (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit it that way. I edited it from the edit page on Wikipedia. I am sorry if the markup information was lost -- I am new to this and am not sure what I am doing wrong when I edit within Wikipedia, but I am trying to follow the directions given. There seems to be differing feedback and comments when it comes to Rob Enderle's information. Perhaps his bio should be re-written in a neutral tone, as Wikipedia states it should be. Or, perhaps someone more knowledgeable about revising content on this site than I should edit the bio correctly to make it neutral, as I thought the edits I made were. Wtil (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)wtil[reply]

Re: Question

[edit]

Welcome! Since you are a new editor I suggest you read Wikipedia's Introduction. It contains a basic overview of how to edit.

These are your previous edits to the article: 1, 2, 3. In each case you added information, but you also removed a large portion of it. The information you removed also included the citations. These are the basic citation templates. If you see one in an article it is generally not a good idea to remove it unless you are going to replace it with another citation or the sentence the citation is supporting does not belong in the article.

Right now, you are correct that there is no format in the article. However, anything you add must be supported by a citation or reference, otherwise it will be removed. I agree that the old article was very negative and violated Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. That is why it got stubbed to its current form.

Let me know if you have any more questions. KnightLago (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]