User talk:RachelMG

Hi there - Rachel is it? Just wanted to explain why I reverted your edits on the learndirect article. If you check the history of the article you'll see that it was deleted recently when one editor felt it was too much like advertising, even though it was pretty factual and neutral at the time. This is what tends to happen around here. All articles must have a neutral point of view, and any claims have to be backed up by citing independent sources. Whilst what you added is all accurate, it's the sort of content which is likely to lead to someone proposing the article for 'speedy deletion' which is a bit like a kangaroo court in the sense that once it's been tagged as advertising or for speedy deletion then it can be pulled without warning. Can I suggest if you really want to say what you're saying that you find published references to all the data and cite them in the article? Also bear in mind that this is a global site, so the text needs to be written to reflect that; eg UK rather than 'our nation'. Given that the article is pretty poor at the moment, any edits to get us back to a factual and evidence-based article on learndirect would be most welcome. Mactabby (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)