User talk:Jon36

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from James Stewart Jr.. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the [ page history]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. tedder (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.--Dbratland (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I fixed it. What's wrong with it?


 * First you changed a couple words, and added no citations. Now you have added some links, but you kept all of the boasting and peacock phrases.  For example, it says, "He is considered the best international racer to race in the AMA Motocross, and AMA Supercross."  Who considers him the best international racer?  Can you cite a reliable source?  It also says, "He has proven to be the most consistent racer in the world during the 2000-2010 decade. ... He has since ascended the international ranks of the sport to become one of its biggest stars and, to date, Australia's most successful motocross racer."  Source?  If that is true, it should be easy to find an authority who says so.  You added this link but it does not verify anything in that paragraph, it only summarizes his career (which is a good model to imitate).  You need to find sources for these claims, or else delete them.  Or put the Peacock template back and let someone else do it.The rest of the article is just as bad.  It reads like an advertisement.  It should stick to facts.  It would help if you cited objective sources instead of sources who are paid to promote Chad Reed.  Try to find reputable sources that are independent, like newspapers and magazines.I would recommend just deleting all these flowery adjectives and sticking to describing exactly what Chad Reed's accomplishments are, and let those speak for themselves.  It's not Wikipedia's job to tell the world how great someone is, but if you're going to say it you need to tie it straight to a reliable source.  --Dbratland (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

ok thanks man. I'll try to improve the article.