User talk:Jlhowe

Welcome!
Hello, Jlhowe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on Soren1997 (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)|my talk page]], or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Stephen W. Scherer
Hello Jlhowe. I notice you have reverted both my good faith edits, and that of an anonymous editor and a number of bots, on the Stephen W. Scherer article without any justification. This is bad form for a number of reasons:
 * Wholesale reverting removes all the changes in an edit. Even if you agree with some of them, its very unlikely that every edit I made made the article poorer. For example, many of my edits were according to our manual of style to move external links out of the text and into references. You also risk violating WP:3RR.
 * This article is a Biography of a living person, which is means we must take extra care with verifiability, neutrality, and the avoidance of original research. Many of my edits were in line with this policy and reverting them is liable to get you blocked. For example, we avoid listing dates of birth of non-notable people (like Scherer's family) because of the possibility of identity theft. I removed these per WP:BLPNAME, you replaced them. Not cool.
 * I have no interest in Stephen W. Scherer as a person and his article is just one of many thousands I have editor in my role as an administrator on Wikipedia. You appear to have a professional relationship with him and have edited precisely one article on Wikipedia. Can you see how this could be perceived as a potential conflict of interest? In such cases it is difficult to have a neutral perspective on how a biography shoulb be written. It is a good idea to permit other editors to assess the article rather then revert them.
 * Finally, if you read other scientific biographies of a high quality, you will see that they do not have the hagiographic, promotional tone, the numerous dramatic WP:PEACOCK terms ("His pioneering discoveries", "immensely impacting the lives of families suffering from this devastating disease"), the cheesy self aggrandizing quotes (His philosophy in science and life is 'a goal equals an assist') and the list of non-notable students and post-docs.

In short, I'm going to revert back to the version that does not read like a promotional resume. Please desist from changing it back to the current version. By all means continue to edit it if you like, just make sure you keep in mind my points. Have a good read of Biographies of living persons and the various links, above. If you continue to revert without any explanation or engagement, I will move to restrict your ability to edit this article. Best. Rockpock e  t  20:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)