User talk:Jumblestone2

August 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Bob Chilcott 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: Bob Chilcott was changed by Jumblestone2 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.878342 on 2014-08-25T10:32:56+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bob Chilcott
Hello! Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, namely the article on Bob Chilcott. However, there are several things you need to be aware of. Wikipedia requires that all information be supported by reliable sources. These need to be cited inline, especially on biographies of living people (BLPs), where all controversial or challengeable material needs to be supported by an inline citation. The big reason your edit was reverted is because you removed all the sources and citations, making the article into effective original research, which is not allowed.

Here are some tips I think would help you be successful: I realise that the page does not currently meet all the rules I mentioned above, but it's important not to make it worse in that sense. I know Wikipedia can be strange or confusing, so if you need help you are welcome to ask me, or you can post at the Teahouse where other editors can give you advice. Best, BethNaught (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Make your edits in bitesize pieces rather than all at once. This will improve the amount of explanation you can do in edit summaries.
 * Focus on removing content which is not supported by a reliable source. This is an important part of BLP quality control.
 * Then fix any remaining factual errors. If a source says something wrong, find a correct source which is more reliable. However, do not whitewash the article of negative content or make it sound at all promotional, or suspicion will be aroused.
 * Then add more good, sourced content to improve the article.
 * Lastly, if you have to make a big explanation for the edit, write it on the talk page and refer to that in your edit summary.
 * P.S. After rereading your version I noticed that there was quite a bit of promotional language. Wikipedia aims to write dispassionately, with a neutral point of view. It is also discouraged to write about people you know or are professionally connected to: if this is the case, you are encouraged to declare this and suggest improvements on the talk page. (See the conflict of interest policy.) If your suggestions don't get attention, you can ask for help from eg WikiProject Classical music.
 * Again, please ensure you write neutrally. BethNaught (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)