User talk:Macbeth123

September 2012
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman with this edit. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. O.Koslowski (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. O.Koslowski (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reported your edits here . Seeking consensus through discussion on talk pages and explanation of intent is always preferable to plowing ahead..... 99.149.85.40 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing problems
Hello, Macbeth123. I am here because of a report on you at Administrator intervention against vandalism. I have looked at your editing, and while "vandalism" is clearly not the right word to describe what you have been doing, there are problems with your editing, so I will attempt to clarify the situation for you.

Firstly, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a manual, guidebook, or directory, and it is not appropriate to have information of a "here is how to do so and so" kind. Secondly, Wikipedia articles should be written from a detached, objective point of view, and the author of content should not intrude himself or herself into the article: an article should not refer to its authors, and should be written in the third person. For both these reasons, such language as "If you need to make a complaint about a UK government department, or one of its agencies or the NHS in England we're here to help" is not suitable. In addition, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, and that sort of thing could be seen as promoting the service that is offered.

If you remove content that others have written and that is referenced to reliable sources then you should explain why. Removing content without a reason is dubious practice. Moreover, if any of your editing, whether removal, addition, or amendment of content, is challenged, questioned, or reverted by another editor, then it is essential that you do not repeat your edit without explaining why you think your change is justified. The nature of Wikipedia, where anyone can edit, means that the system is open to a person making an edit, another person who disagrees reverting it, the first person restoring it, and so on at great length. This is completely unconstructive, and it is essential to avoid such activity. It helps to give a brief explanation of what you are doing in an edit summary (see the box labelled "Edit summary" just below the area in which you edit). if further explanation is needed, you can write on the relevant article talk page, such as Talk:Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, or, if there is one particular editor you wish to communicate with, on that user's talk page (as I am writing on your talk page). Even if you do explain why you think your edits are right, you should still not keep on making the same edit repeatedly if others disagree: doing so, known as edit warring, is not approved of, and can result in being blocked from editing.

I hope this has gone some way to clarifying why your editing has been criticised. Feel welcome to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)