User talk:Cdnyt

August 2018
Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in this edit to Rachel L. Swarns, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You cannot remove almost an entire article worth of reliably sourced content just because you do not like it or claim it is inaccurate. If there are contrary reliable, verifiable sources, you can add the competing point of view.


 * As further information, please see What Wikipedia is not and Verifiability. Wikipedia is not a forum, blog, soapbox, fan site or advice site. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish or remove content based on rumors, personal opinions, commentary, advocacy, original research or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. See also Biographies of living persons, Five Pillars, Identifying reliable sources, Citing sources, Help:Footnotes, No original research, Manual of Style/Words to watch and Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Referencing for beginners; Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Simplified ruleset; Simplified Manual of Style; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)